What is the Austrian view on residential zoning laws?
To give an example, near where I live the local government has ruled that certain suburbs be rezoned so that buildings up to five stories may be built. Such buildings would be completely out of character since most of the existing homes are detached on large-ish blocks of land with big lawns and leafy streets, etc. In other words, typical middle to upper middle class suburbia. Residents are complaining that large apartment blocks will devalue the area, increase noise and traffic, reduce privacy (apartment residents can overlook their backyards), etc. The usual complaints.
The govt says that, due to population growth, they need to allow for higher density living.
ITGF: What is the Austrian view on residential zoning laws?
They are bad.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
I don't know what is the Austrian view.
But I think it is deeply wrong to create artificial shortages and make housing more expensive for people until they are paying half their salary towards housing payments, just to make neighbourhoods prettier or meet the purposes of people who bribe governments.
Did you know that the "sudden increase in millionaires" in North America in 2008 that many magazines talk about actually came about due to a large number of people suddenly having to sell their houses for millions of dollars in that given year just to pay back their huge housing loans? After which, these "millionaires" barely broke even and live in small apartments or even in their cars.
It's because zoning laws pervade in nearly every part of this continent.
Regulation is an act of property ownership.
As a property, a city needs to regulate what its tenants can or cannot do or build there. But regulation is also an economic good, and without private property and a market for economic calculation, it is impossible to determine what kind of regulation is or isn't necessary outside of whim.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
"What is the Austrian view on residential zoning laws?"
You mean Libertarian (political philosophy)
http://mises.org/daily/4264
http://mises.org/daily/3506
http://mises.org/daily/2077
Stranger:Regulation is an act of property ownership. As a property, a city needs to regulate what its tenants can or cannot do or build there. But regulation is also an economic good, and without private property and a market for economic calculation, it is impossible to determine what kind of regulation is or isn't necessary outside of whim. That implies that the city owns all the land, and that the "homeowners" within the city are, in fact, nothing of the sort. Am I right? The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 20
That implies that the city owns all the land, and that the "homeowners" within the city are, in fact, nothing of the sort.
Am I right?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
That implies that the city owns all the land, and that the "homeowners" within the city are, in fact, nothing of the sort. Am I right?
You can own property within other property. For example, a website hosted on a virtual server is not owned by the host by the fact that it is hosted there. Likewise, a car parked in a store parking lot is not owned by the store.
It would be right to say that homeowners own land within a city, while still having to follow the regulations of the city for this right, just like one follows the regulations of a web hosting service or store parking lot.
Stranger:You can own property within other property. For example, a website hosted on a virtual server is not owned by the host by the fact that it is hosted there. Likewise, a car parked in a store parking lot is not owned by the store. It would be right to say that homeowners own land within a city, while still having to follow the regulations of the city for this right, just like one follows the regulations of a web hosting service or store parking lot.
The only way for that to make sense is if I own my house, but I don't own the land that it sits on. Is that what you're saying?
Otherwise, how can two people own the same thing?
Furthermore, who owns the city?
You can own a garden while not owning the land the garden is embedded in. A garden or a porch or a lobby are just spaces, they don't have a special quality of being land.
I very much doubt that land is specific enough of a good to be owned, anyway.
At this moment, same people who own the Post Office and General Motors.
Stranger:You can own a garden while not owning the land the garden is embedded in. A garden or a porch or a lobby are just spaces, they don't have a special quality of being land.
Is that a yes or a no?
Stranger:I very much doubt that land is specific enough of a good to be owned, anyway.
So you think all land is (or would/should be) unowned? Can you expand on this?
Stranger: Autolykos:Furthermore, who owns the city? At this moment, same people who own the Post Office and General Motors.
Autolykos:Furthermore, who owns the city?
So you see the state as morally legitimate? Otherwise, in the absence of the state, who do you think would own a city?
You misunderstand me. I don't think that land is something. There is no point arguing over it.
The state is legitimate by pure power. In the absence of the state, I have no idea who would own a city, but more than likely there would emerge a capitalist class of specialist owners in this area, as in any other private industry. The capital market, in its broadest sense, would own cities.
Stranger:You misunderstand me. I don't think that land is something. There is no point arguing over it.
I'm intrigued. Could you explain to me why you think that way?
Stranger:The state is legitimate by pure power. In the absence of the state, I have no idea who would own a city, but more than likely there would emerge a capitalist class of specialist owners in this area, as in any other private industry. The capital market, in its broadest sense, would own cities.
Just so I'm sure, you're saying that, in your judgement, the state is morally legitimate by pure power? Otherwise, what sense of "legitimate" do you mean?
I've read your blog posts and found them very interesting. What I'm curious about is how a city is distinct from the land it occupies. After all, if a building inside a city can be owned by someone other than the owners of the city itself, how is a city really any different from a certain area of land? The same question goes for other "territorial entities" (which you refer to as "states"). Furthermore, how can such "territorial entities" be homesteaded in the first place?
Firstly, I don't think morality has anything to do with right or justice, so don't bother pushing me on it.
Secondly, the reason it is hard to distinguish cities and states from land is that, as I am trying to point out, it is hard to distinguish land from anything. Land is too abstract a notion to be appropriated. A farm is something tangible, with boundaries and people acting upon it. Even a ranch has some natural limits, even though they tend to exist only a map. But land qua land makes no sense to me other than as taxonomy.
So the question remains, how can we homestead "land"? Well, it is easy to homestead a farm - just build one. The same thing is true for a city, unless someone builds streets, there can't be houses. (How did people get there?) But appropriating something more "natural", like an oil field, is a point of contention amongst libertarians, and I'm finding out that it is deeply connected to the appropriation of intellectual property. I'm writing something on this subject at the moment. Will post it soon.
Spidey: "They are bad."
Except Austrian Economics is a value free science, so they wouldn't say that at all.
Stranger: "Land is too abstract a notion to be appropriated."
Wow... you just get worse & worse don't you. What's your obsession with IP?
Conza88: ITGF: What is the Austrian view on residential zoning laws? Spidey: "They are bad." Except Austrian Economics is a value free science, so they wouldn't say that at all.
Fine, they don't work as intended.
-Brodie (sounds like bad to me)