If the goal is to get government and bureaucrats entirely out of the
business of dictating land use, I think we need to get government out
of the business entirely out of the business of running and
maintaining roads. Individuals can take responsibility for finding
ways to move from one place to another, instead of relying on Soviet-
style big government to make these decisions for them.
Most likely, private enterprise would spring up to build roads as
needed, and motorists and others would "vote with their wallets" to
choose the most desirable routes. Of course, without eminent domain
-- a form of government coercion that should never be in the hands of
private businesses -- it might be hard to assemble some of these
routes. But if we rely on the genius of the market, we can be sure
these issues will resolve themselves in the most satisfactory way
possible.
Likewise, I'm sure the market will provide clean air and clean water,
at least to people who enough may to pay for them. And who cares
about the others, anyway?
On Oct 27, 2007, at 5:31 PM, Eric Westhagen wrote:
Dear Eric Sundquest,
Of course we have had zoning for centuries and we have another
dozen methods of controlling the "bundle of rights" which
constitutes "fee-simple" ownership of lands. To talk like your
description is nonsense. In fact it is only when GOVERNMENT
suddenly changes the status of your residential neighborhood to
commercial to accommodate those who use the STATE as their
"handmaiden" should you be concerned with the strip maul or
slaughter house next door. Government has always been used for
their total power to make such devastating changes. Zoning would
certainly protect you in your described situation, but just as
likely, zoning would have "suddenly created" the hazard you describe.
Also, I said in my previous post:-----<"The pros and cons of the
competing "institutions" of land controls in place in the USA could
be discussed endlessly. But whether or not the mission of BFW
should be in the middle of political land use IS THE
QUESTION.">----------
Eric Westhagen
Eric Sundquist wrote:
So it's OK with you if I buy the houses next to you, tear them all
and any trees down, and put in a strip mall with fast food
surrounded by asphalt? The extra 5,000 car trips a day on your
street won't be a problem for you? Super.
And maybe we'll throw in a hog rendering plant on the site for
good measure. Cause hogs got to be rendered somewhere, and since
you don't mind the truck traffic or stench, and are all in favor
of the property owner being able to do whatever he/she pleases on
the land, we might as well do it there, where you can be secure in
avoiding a "synthetic planned society."
ES
----- Original Message ----
From: Eric Westhagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: BikiesSubmissions <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 4:21:28 PM
Subject: [Bikies] Hitting a Nerve?
Dear Group,
"Smart Land Use" seems to be rubbing a scab with those who are less
concerned with biking than they are about social planning and
control of
society. Why should a bicycle group be engaged at redirecting
land uses
into a synthetic "planned society?"
Etc.
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
