Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-09-2013, 11:07 PM
 
3,040 posts, read 2,573,386 times
Reputation: 665

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sco View Post
They may go about it in completely different ways, but communism and libertarianism both end up with the same result. The average person's life would be controlled by the government or the oligarchs, but it would be under complete control either way.

Did you bother reading the thread at all?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-10-2013, 12:57 AM
 
8,091 posts, read 5,900,268 times
Reputation: 1578
All your contemporary ideologues will simply be absorbed by the establishment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 07:26 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,856 posts, read 8,179,887 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
so in other words you would be ok with strip clubs next door to schools and churches? would you also be ok with an industrial business next to your residence? how about this, would you be ok with living next to say a chrome shop on one side, and a tallow company on the other? and lets say across the street is a homeless shelter, would you be ok with that? and lets say the home you bought, had no building codes, would you be ok with exposed wiring? a lack of insulation? exposed framework? minimal framework? minimal reinforcement? a wooden foundation? or better a dirt foundation?
Look, you need to look at probabilities instead of possibilities. Yes, there is a possibility that someone might want to open a strip club next to a school. But, the probability of that happening is basically zero. Now, to understand why the probability is zero. You have to imagine a world where, the government runs no schools, the government creates no roads, and of course, the government imposes no building codes or zoning laws.


If schools were private, then the likelihood that parents would willingly send their children to a school which is located next to a strip club, is basically zero. So even if hypothetically there was a bustling school, and a strip club somehow managed to open up next door. That school would lose all its business. And so, the school, for the sake of its own survival, would need to find a way to keep undesirable institutions away. As well as parents of that school would also feel a need to keep away undesirable institutions. And thus, even if someone wanted to create a strip club next to a school. The backlash from the community, would produce massive protests, which would most certainly force the strip club out of business if it was really located anywhere near a school.

I want to add, if you go even further than libertarianism and look at the case of total anarchy. Someone opening a strip club near a school would be such a socially offensive act. That it would be likely that the strip club would be burned to the ground, and possibly the owner and even its customers, would probably be attacked by the more pious in the community. Thus anarchy would even more adamantly prohibit strip clubs, and possibly not just near schools, but could end up creating a world with them entirely.


Now, if you were opening a school. Most likely, you would want to prevent all of these problems from even being a possibility. So you might try to create "contracts" with properties in the area. These "contractual" obligations usually result in something we call a "Homeowners association". But it doesn't have to create a homeowners association as you would think of it. Which has fees. But rather, its just an agreement between owners of property in an area to not do certain things, or they will be fined or sued, and could potentially lose their property.

HOA's are really the equivalent of government. But they are on some level, a voluntary arrangement. Not a forced arrangement. And if someone desired to open a school. One of the things they might do, would be to look for property owners, or even the existing HOA's in the area, and pursue their help in putting in place certain kinds of building restrictions. To keep out things like strip clubs, bars, liquor stores, gambling, prostitution, or whatever.


Now, lets take this a little further and consider another factor in how businesses operate. Imagine a world with no public roads, only private roads. That means that all roads would be built by individuals, communities, or companies. And thus, would be controlled by those groups.

It is pretty easy to understand that, if a private school owned the roads near itself. Then it would be unlikely to allow a strip club to be built(or at least operate) nearby. And even if it did not own the roads nearby itself, maybe there was a private company that was providing the roads nearby. That school, and also the community nearby, would place heavy pressure on that road company not to allow a strip club to be built near the school(or even the community for that matter, if they opposed it). And because the road company needs customers. It will generally do whatever makes its customers happy(otherwise it would go out of business).


Thus, in a sense, regardless of private roads and private roads, and in the absence of government imposed building codes and zoning laws. There would effectively still be a system of somewhat democratic building codes and zoning laws. Because the people would create systems to coerce people around them to build properly. To maintain properly. To run appropriate businesses. By either creating mutually beneficial contractual obligations for members of a community. Or by putting pressure, either socially or economically on any business who might behave in a socially unacceptable way(IE build a strip club near a school).


So then you might ask. If the result of libertarianism is to create a system of building codes and zoning laws, similar to what we already have, then why bother?

Well, while it creates a system somewhat resembling what we already have. The differences are vast and important. Especially in regards to the scale of such a system, and defining boundaries.


To understand my complaints about the current system. We need to look at how such systems form to begin with.

Most building codes and zoning laws are imposed by cities. Which is why people living in rural areas usually are exempt from such rules.

Cities are formed through a process called incorporation. People in a specific geographic area will petition to incorporate. Incorporation does not require everyone in a community to agree to incorporation. It only requires a majority of voters in that geographic area to approve. Thus, 49% of residents could potentially be opposed to incorporation, but be forced into it. But it actually gets worse than that.

To incorporate it does not actually require a majority of residents to agree to incorporation. Or even a majority of all registered voters. It only requires a majority in regards to the people who actually vote. And since very few people tend to vote in local elections. The actual number of people who have to approve of incorporation is very low. For instance, in the state of Alaska. To incorporate it requires a minimum of 400 total residents to incorporate. And it only requires 50 of those residents to actually approve and having a majority(thus with 50 yes votes, at most there would be 99 actual voters), in order to incorporate. If you consider that about 75% of the population is over the age of 18. That means in most cases where a city incorporates, somewhere between 16-25% of the total population actually agrees to being incorporated. Thus, between 75% and 84% of all voters either were opposed, or did not vote. But it gets even worse than that.

Very few people vote in local elections. If we consider that about 50-60% of all eligible voters vote in national elections. By contrast, local elections generally hover closer to 10%. In fact, in a recent city election in Dallas. The total turnout rate was a mere 5% of all registered voters.

Who do you think those 5% are? Do you think they that 5% consist of your average citizens? No.

Voters in local elections, are overwhelmingly special interests groups, and business owners. Of the more "average" citizens who vote in local elections. The vast majority are senior citizens. Thus, local representatives are about as far from representing the needs of the average citizen as you can get.

Voting in general is really about voting for your own benefit. But this is especially severe in local elections, since the only people voting for their own benefit, are businesses(who want to increase profits for themselves), the wealthy(who are usually trying to protect the value of their assets), and then certain social special interest groups(who are looking for money for social programs).

Businesses don't like competition. And since it is far easier for large businesses to comply with government rules. As well as acquire expensive commercial real-estate. They are more likely to support zoning laws and building codes.

Wealthy people want to keep the poor away, and to protect their property values. So they are more likely to support building codes and zoning laws. To prevent the possibility of "slums" or "undesirable businesses" being opened near their high dollar estates. As well as passing laws that require you to do things like paint your house, mow your lawn, repair your roof, maintain your driveway, etc. You know, keep your house valuable, so the houses in the neighborhood won't lose value. That is what wealthy people want.


On the other hand, the working poor tend to neither be interested in incorporating into a city. Nor are they interested in the existence of building codes or zoning laws. Because those things just make housing more expensive, and businesses harder to start. But they are forced along by a system which makes it far too easy for special interests to force their rules on everyone.



Now, lets examine a more libertarian approach. Something more similar to a system of "homeowners associations". In that system. Every single person with property in the area would effectively have to agree to any rule before it could be imposed upon them. Furthermore, whatever social rules and restrictions that are created, would tend to be more representative of the actual wishes of all of the people in the community. Rather than just the small percentage who actually vote.

Furthermore, a system of community-based HOA's, local private roads, and private schools. Would give a much more "dynamic" system. Whereas a large city tends to impose a level of conformity. An HOA-based community, is more like rural areas. Where you might have very expensive houses next to trailers. Or you might have a large gated developed community, and then quarter of a mile away, there is a dirt road leading to a row of old trailers.


Basically, if there existed no government imposed building codes or zoning laws. You would still have rich areas with nothing but mansions or McMansions, with rules in place to block out the creation of low-income housing, and commercial activity(to protect real estate values). In those kinds of areas, you would still see many dedicated commercial zones(strip malls, big-box stores, etc) separate from residential housing, just we have it today.


The main difference is that, you would see far more housing diversity. With many areas of what are today major cities, allowing basically the building of practically any structure. From rows of small closely-built shacks. To something that might look similar to "Kowloon Walled-city". Where there is no real division of commercial and residential property.

Kowloon Walled City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And really, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't have far more commercial activity in residential areas. It is far more efficient. And should be supported by those on the political left.

Just think New York City. Or really, most older cities. The buildings there, had the living areas above shops. If you go back a few hundred years. In cities, there were basically two to five story tract housing. Where the bottom floor was a shop. And usually the houses were built with very little "frontage". Usually only about 15 to 20 feet wide at the front and about 30-50 feet deep. To allow more "shops" in a smaller area along a single street.


Even if you consider "The Wild West", of the 1800's. You will recognize that practically every building in those western towns, were always two story. With a residence on top of a store. It would have been pretty ridiculous for them to have lived in a residential area, and had to have either walked, rode a train/trolley, horse, or whatever to work.


Regardless. I always find this whole discussion to be silly anyway. The people who tend to so strongly support building codes and zoning laws, are people who tend to fall on the political left. But, the result of libertarianism is really everything the liberals want.


Liberals want more affordable housing. Libertarianism accomplishes that.
Liberals want more densely populated cities. Libertarianism accomplishes that.
Liberals want a more representative society, with less power wielded by businesses and the rich. Libertarianism accomplishes that.
Liberals want less consumption of fossil fuels. Libertarianism, through more dense cities, combined commercial/residential and private roads, accomplishes that.
Liberals want less corporatism, less big-box stores, more small businesses. Libertarianism accomplishes that.



I think what people freak out about, is that they assume if something isn't illegal, that everyone is going to be doing it all the time. Basically, to them, drugs have to be illegal, because if they aren't illegal, then everyone will be doing drugs.

If you go back to your point. You argue, if it is legal to build a strip club next to a school, or maybe a brothel next to a church, then people will build a brothel next to a church. Or a strip club next to a school. Or whatever.

And while, at first that might seem like a real possibility. It totally disregards human behavior. And pretends that unless you create laws, then there will inevitably be nothing but chaos. But it ignores the fact that humans already perceive law, based on social norms and normal human behavior. In fact, the entire system of American law, is based on English Common law. Which isn't really law in a sense, it was just a way to codify effectively the way the common person should perceive the world in regards to right and wrong. Common law in some ways is just a codification of "common sense".

Common sense dictates that a person would not want to build a brothel next to a church. And that, if a person were to build a brothel next to a church, that it wouldn't be socially tolerated. Common sense would dictate that, it is doubtful that there would be very many patrons for such an establishment(if any, besides a few radicals). As well a continuous stream of protests and heated exchanges between individuals in the community and patrons of such an establishment.

Common sense would dictate to me, that I wouldn't exactly feel very safe being a patron to a brothel located next to a church. Can you imagine walking into that brothel, with scores of hostile protesters outside? I would be fearful of my life. Or my job. If they were to have my face on TV, patronizing a strip club located next to a kids school.


My point is, if you just apply common sense, you'll realize that building codes and zoning laws are at best, completely unnecessary. And in my opinion, they are very harmful. They actually help to keep people in poverty by driving up the cost of housing. They give big business an advantage by making it more difficult to start a business. Which creates an environment where people become slaves to corporations. Who use their ever-increasing profits, to buy elections, so they can continue to dictate the rules of society to the rest of us.


Stop being so fearful. I don't understand why freedom is so scary?

I saw a great clip the other day from the show "John Adams", on HBO. Its basically a contrast of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams(who both would be a great contrast to Alexander Hamilton).

Basically, John Adams sort of follows the whole Thomas Hobbes line of thinking. In which, humans are inherently evil, and without a government telling us what to do all the time, there would be chaos. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson basically takes the line that, a government in inherently corrupt. And we should have more faith in humanity, there is nothing to fear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcWaCsvpikQ

You should watch the entire John Adams series if you have the chance. I watched it. It reminded me why I so admire Thomas Jefferson. And why I absolutely despise Alexander Hamilton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7aUY1Pjrlw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p-NlbifWrk


Have some faith.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 09-10-2013 at 07:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 07:37 AM
 
3,537 posts, read 2,730,466 times
Reputation: 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sco View Post
They may go about it in completely different ways, but communism and libertarianism both end up with the same result. The average person's life would be controlled by the government or the oligarchs, but it would be under complete control either way.
Yeah that makes alot of sense. Libertarians whom cherish individual liberty would let Oligarchs have control over them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,856 posts, read 8,179,887 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBen View Post
Yeah that makes alot of sense. Libertarians whom cherish individual liberty would let Oligarchs have control over them.

Sometimes I question the sanity of people who want to equate libertarians with communists.


Who the hell are these oligarchs you speak of? It seems that those on the left want to call the Koch brothers Oligarchs. Or the Waltons. Or who knows, pick a CEO of a large corporation and a leftist will proclaim that in a libertarian world, they would be our rulers.


Which is absolutely ridiculous. Being that libertarianism ties the hands of government. So all the money and power that could possibly be wielded by the wealthiest men in the world, couldn't accomplish anything under libertarianism. Because if there is no government to buy, then having money doesn't necessarily accomplish much of anything.


Secondly, the notion that some greedy CEO is somehow going to abuse and subjugate all of us little people. Pretends that humans are too stupid to know any better. Or that, humans are somehow incapable of escaping abuse unless government is there to free them.

Not only is that ridiculous. Being that corporations exist only because the people allow them to exist by patronizing them. But secondly, there is no historical basis for such a view.

As just a general example, lets look at the history of real slavery, the government enforced kind. The truth is, the only reason why slavery could even exist, was because the government enforced it. If you read history, you would realize how the slaves would regularly rebel and kill their masters. As well as just running away, many times to another state, where slavery wasn't tolerated. The southern states were so fed up with northern states not returning their "property", that they decided to pass the fugitive slave act in an attempt to force the northern states to return the slaves.

Furthermore, they had to pass laws making it illegal to educate the slaves. Was that because without government, the slaves would stay ignorant forever? No, if that was the case there would be no need for such a law. The reason was because, not only would the slaves find ways to educate themselves, others in society would educate them as well. And you can't very well have slavery when the slaves are smart enough to not just roll over and accept it.


Thus, the only true justification for a large and coercive government. Is to believe that people are too stupid or incapable to live without it. And that, without laws, people would be murdering and stealing and raping and who knows what else. Because if it isn't illegal, then there would be nothing to stop them. Right?

Lets examine this statement and just look at murder. Do you really think that if there wasn't a law making murder illegal, that there would be more murders than there already are? Do you think if there weren't any laws to make rape illegal, that people would be raping without any consequences?

Think of it like this, without government, if someone murdered or raped your sister, are you going to just throw your hands up and say "well, it wasn't illegal, so I guess its ok." Don't be ridiculous. If there wasn't a law making murder illegal, and someone murdered your sister. You would probably run out and murder the guy who did it.

My sister got raped, and was beat so badly I didn't even recognize her as I walked right by her at the hospital. And the guy who did it is pretty lucky that the police got to him before my family got to him. Otherwise, he would probably be at the bottom of a lake right now.

The truth is, I would much rather murder someone with a law making murder illegal, than if there was no law. Right now, many murderers are out of prison in only 5-10 years. And those who commit particularly heinous crimes, tend to be separated from even the other inmates for their protection. On the other hand, if they had murdered someone in a world without laws. The odds of the perpetrator seeing his next birthday are practically zero.

In fact, I would bet you any amount of money, that the absence of government would actually reduce the murder rate significantly, not raise it. And not just murder, but also theft, robbery, rape, even assault. Because the repercussions of such bad behavior would necessarily be severe. I mean, without government, there aren't prisons or jails. Punishments would have to be severe and quick. Because the perpetrator would have to be let loose a "free man" afterwards. Of course, he might end up a free man with a hobble, or in a hole.


The point is. Anyone who argues that libertarianism somehow creates these powerful men, who effectively become unelected rulers. Have no concept of reality or economics. And for some reason, they have absolutely no faith whatsoever in humanity. Whether or not they come out and actually say it, their words imply that they believe people are too stupid, too selfish, or too weak to ever live in a world without government. That idea is not new, it has been around since the beginning of mankind. And it is always pushed by those who are eager to control others, by making them fearful of other people who want to control others. Basically, give me all the power, and I'll protect you from those other guys who want to have the power.

The idea that a company can abuse or exploit the masses, and that they will just accept it, is simply ridiculous. Have some faith in humanity. Stop believing that everyone is an idiot, and that you are the only one who knows anything. While there definitely are a lot of stupid people out there. I promise you, you are unlikely to be as smart as you think you are.


I get so tired of hearing the crap that comes out of the mouths of people who don't agree with, or don't understand libertarianism. Its the epitome of fear-mongering. Its disgusting and ridiculous.

Is libertarianism perfect? Absolutely not. But lets attempt to refrain from making ridiculous statements like, "libertarians are the new communists". There is simply no comparison.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 09-10-2013 at 03:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 04:13 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,512,309 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
i have lived in farm country, it doesnt bother me in the least, but then i am not the average person.

Farm country?

Then why are you spouting building codes. There are no codes in the country. That is an urban thing.
Now go pull a permit for a pole barn!!! LOL!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 05:16 PM
 
Location: US
742 posts, read 677,433 times
Reputation: 213
That's cute how you just buy right into it, OP. Bloomberg is Shill 101 and it uses DISQUS.

Last edited by truthseeking; 09-10-2013 at 05:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 06:56 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,745,522 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Farm country?

Then why are you spouting building codes. There are no codes in the country. That is an urban thing.
Now go pull a permit for a pole barn!!! LOL!
because even the townships have building codes to an extent. again, i have no issue with building codes as long as they are applied fairly, and are not oppressive. building codes have been good for many areas, take LA for instance. there are more buildings there today that can withstand large earthquakes because of building codes, which leads to saving lives. or how about miami, where hurricanes regularly roll through? many buildings there survive those because of building codes.

my issue with them is when government uses them as a weapon to keep businesses out. here in tucson for instance the local government uses building codes to force delays in construction, to prevent businesses they dont want in tucson to make the building effort so expensive that the business gives up and goes away. and yes our city council is indeed stupid that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2013, 05:12 AM
 
2,096 posts, read 4,762,930 times
Reputation: 1272
American "Libertarians" believe the corporations and people with money should be able to call the shots. They don't oppose government, they aren't anarchists, they want a government by and for the rich.

Essentially American "libertarianism" refers to an extreme form of Fascism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2013, 05:36 AM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,453,393 times
Reputation: 3142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Sometimes I question the sanity of people who want to equate libertarians with communists.

Who the hell are these oligarchs you speak of? It seems that those on the left want to call the Koch brothers Oligarchs. Or the Waltons. Or who knows, pick a CEO of a large corporation and a leftist will proclaim that in a libertarian world, they would be our rulers.

Which is absolutely ridiculous. Being that libertarianism ties the hands of government. So all the money and power that could possibly be wielded by the wealthiest men in the world, couldn't accomplish anything under libertarianism. Because if there is no government to buy, then having money doesn't necessarily accomplish much of anything.
This is similar to the point I usually bring up in addressing these types of complaints. It is shallow thinking on the part of the anti-libertarians. The government power which they say keeps large companies in check is in fact the power which created those large companies to begin with. Without loopholes to exploit and politicians to bribe, the companies would not have been able to reach the heights of wealth and power they have. The opportunity for them to engage in exploitation simply would not exist.

Without any opportunity to leverage unfair competition you can only accumulate wealth and power by satisfying your customers. And if you're satisfying your customers, you aren't exploiting them. As soon as you start to exploit them, they will simply switch to a competitor and the market will bury you. You don't need government to control monopolies when there aren't any monopolies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:04 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top