As a part of his weekly — soon to be daily — radio show in Gainesville, Florida, faithful Antiplanner ally Ed Braddy has put together a series of radio From coughs and colds to migraines and bronchitis, it’s uses cialis price downtownsault.org are numerous. Penile implants This treatment involves surgically placing devices into both sides of the penis. discover that viagra rx Do not take drugs holding an immense source of nitrates during this treatment. online prescription viagra without The American Society for visit this link commander levitra Reproductive Medicine estimates there are 6.1 million people dealing with infertility in India. ads for smart growth. These include the Revolutionary New Compactorizer, the Class Action Lawsuit, and the Charrettes. Feel free to pass these along.
Happy Smart Growth Radio Ads
Bookmark the permalink.
If the AP & friends invested as much time advocating for the repeal of restrictive single-use zoning laws and codes as the time they spend thinking up more and more ways to attack Smart Growth…
…then the rest of us would believe that they really do just care about freedom.
I wanted to agree with hkelly, but decided to listen to the ads first.
After hearing these ads, I strongly disagree with hkelly because I’m pretty sure no one wants someone with this lack of mental ability on their side. That is: you don’t want this joker trying to craft any sort of policy for anything.
DS
First one was pretty good, the second two took too much effort: if I didn’t know who was sponsoring them I wouldn’t have waited around long enough to tell who they were spoofing.
Tyler Cohen (GMU Free market economist – a real economist) posts a link to a paper on Houston’s “no-zoning” myth.
And I see Thacker has already been there today.
I do like MR , and this is an interesting pull-quote from a commenter who may be having the scales on the eyes fall away:
DS
Why does it seem so many arguments against smart growth parallel today’s “discussion” about health care? If the Antiplanner thinks some New Urbanist communities are really just auto-dependent as most sprawl developments, as highlight in “Debunking Portland” and other papers, why do these ads keep talking about people being forced into density and on transit and have to give up their automobile? Surely ROT “debunks” that NU developments are not pedestrian-oriented TOD developments like the planners say – so what’s the big fuss? Further arguments about Portland’s SG, according to Randall’s paper, shows that Portland really has not achieved density at the rates of Kansas City or even Phoenix! But these ads keep talking about forced density!? I’m confused. Does SG = density and transit, or does SG = less density and similar transportation habits??
Or maybe the anti-SG group is trying to use too many arguments, even if they contradict one another and can’t be proven.
Kind of like how Obama is a fascist, communist, socialist, ultra-liberal, peace lovin’ hippy etc. Clearly, he can’t be all of those, but those titles reaallly get people worked up! Proof? Who needs proof these days?
Oh that’s right, these ads (and subsequent recycled arguments against SG) are generally not rooted in reality. Until people are willing to actually have a more free-market built environment, you’re not going to have any neutrality on this matter. It will always be planners vs. anti-smart growth…with planners ultimately winning, btw.
If “libertarians” actually argued for less government restrictions that create low-density sprawl, instead of turning a blind eye to it, I and many others will never be apart of their fraction. Until “libertarians” actually argue for a free-market transportation system and actually address the externalized subsidies the automobile receives, I will continue to blindly support mass transit.
Extremism just breeds opposing extremism.
Just in case Phoenix Mike visits today, I have a question (also offered to any other who wants to take it):
I understand the Hayekian Libertarian position on allowing (if not promoting) the free market. I understand the theory that the infinite decisions of individuals and their consequent effects on society cannot be predicted and are better sated by individual responses. I understand that in promoting a free market, one wants as little direction from a centralized source as possible.
As has been admitted, there are some laws we are obviously willing to create and enforce, murder being the most extreme. Frequently, if not always, a law intended to protect against some moral shortcoming of my neighbor will also incidentally have market consequences.
What is the logical method within economics for dealing with the incidental (that is secondary) market effects of what was intended to solve an exclusively moral issue?
I haven’t researched this so forgive my naivete.
Does it require consensus on a moral issue before its value as a marketable (and thus able to be priced) externality can be established?
We do not have a free market in murder. I am not allowed to kill for a mere fine. The price of your life is my own. (I was opposed to the death penalty until I saw it just now economically).
Way off topic, and I apologize. Just wondering…
ws. the issue is about ‘rooted in reality’ needs more context – eliciting emotions in the listener in order to convey a message. Old school, I know, but that’s how it works. That’s reality.
DS
Greets all. I’ve been writing to a self-imposed/market-imposed deadline, so I’ve been a lurker lately. I’m free to slack on the project, but beating the bell to release by 1/1/10 will likely result in better sales. Ah, capitalism.
ws: Whether Obama can be all of those things depends on how they are defined. With fascism, private production remains nominally in private hands but under complete government control. With socialism and communism, the state more explicitly takes ownership of production. We’ve actually seen a little bit of both — Bank of America is now somewhat under fascist control, while General Motors is now somewhat under comm/soc control, depending how one looks at it. But if you accepted instead the definition of fascism as authoritarian control with the state as the supreme reservoir of, and arbiter of, value — well, one can make the argument that the Obama administration (and current Congress) are behaving consistently with that, while enacting a generally socialist platform. I tend to discard the “hippie” tags just as I discard the claims of the “birthers” and “BHO = Muslim!” galleries, for the simple reason that those are not objectively credible attacks upon Obama.
t g: I am interested in your question but I want to be sure I understand what you are asking. When you say a method “within economics” to deal with “secondary market effects,” what do you mean by those terms?
The core moral issue is one’s own life, in that if one does not have the freedom of action to preserve that, one cannot survive. The “consensus” that exists is then one of each individual seeking to safeguard each individual’s own life. In that respect, your position on the death penalty is consistent with mine.* One respects the lives of others because one depends on others returning that favor in order to survive. (It is conceded that there are irrational individuals out there who do not value their own lives, and I imagine we’ll always wonder if suicides, etc, are content that they “got what they really wanted.” As an atheist, I imagine they may or may not even form a realization of whether it was a mistake before electrical activity in the cortex ceases. The religious might imagine that the dead think over their deeds from a cloudy couch or a fiery chasm. But that’s an entire branch of the question for another day.)
Aaaanyway, Hayek said that all those individuals safeguarding their lives by participating in the free market through voluntary exchange of promises to perform (freedom to contract) are doing so in such a way that the machinations of the aggregate market are the product of these uncountable “happy accidents”, while Rand disagreed and asserted that the machinations of the aggregate market are knowable and understandable and can be traced, rational thread by rational thread, to each rational voluntary action of each individual. (Had anyone the time to do such a thing and perfect access to the information.) This is a significant point of disagreement between Liberal/”Austrian school” economics and Objectivism. (I wrote my substantive paper for law school on the five major points at which the four modern “classical liberal political philosophies” disagree: libertarianism (Nozick), Objectivism, Austrian school, and Keynesianism. I would LOVE to have that paper back to rewrite today. The more one learns…)
In neither the Austrian-school nor Objectivist case would it be necessary for an overentity to plan the economic actions, but for different reasons: Hayek would toss the dice and expect volume to smooth out variance, which is statistically plausible, while Rand asserts that the life-preserving authority vested in each agent is sufficient to drive the aggregate scenario such that it will avoid Scorched Earth For Everybody. Note that Kant and Plato take the opposite tack, asserting “garbage in, garbage out” — their position is that the great unwashed are fundamentally unable to act in their own rational self-interest without being destructive to others, and thus entropic suffering is the unavoidable endpoint of an economy not masterminded by an overentity’s planning, guidance, “philosopher-king benevolence” or what have you. The Kantian/Platonic outlook, however, fails under the weight of its own narcissism: no single entity, person or committee, could possibly perceive, evaluate, and respond to even a fraction of the volume of information used by rational market participants to drive economic actions and interactions.
Once I have a better idea of what your question is asking, I think I can apply these principles to present a genuine and more specific answer.
* In principle. In practice, I oppose the death penalty as it exists in current American law because we have a troubling track record of executing innocent people because they are of minority races or impoverished class, and could not adequately defend against the charges of which they were convicted. Better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to give the state the power to take the life of one innocent man.
I listened to the first ad. It was somewhat funny, but not any new or insightful commentary. I suppose it is a humorous interlude, but I don’t feel inspired to listen to the other recordings or see anything I want to further comment on.
Mike: “Whether Obama can be all of those things depends on how they are defined. With fascism, private production remains nominally in private hands but under complete government control. With socialism and communism, the state more explicitly takes ownership of production. We’ve actually seen a little bit of both  Bank of America is now somewhat under fascist control, while General Motors is now somewhat under comm/soc control, depending how one looks at it. But if you accepted instead the definition of fascism as authoritarian control with the state as the supreme reservoir of, and arbiter of, value  well, one can make the argument that the Obama administration (and current Congress) are behaving consistently with that, while enacting a generally socialist platform. I tend to discard the “hippie†tags just as I discard the claims of the “birthers†and “BHO = Muslim!†galleries, for the simple reason that those are not objectively credible attacks upon Obama.”
ws: I’m not looking for the finer points and differences between ideologies. Though, compare 1930s Italy with America today and one quickly realizes there ain’t nothin’ resembling fascism in America today, especially considering we have non-Anglo president. Obama admin is no more socialist or fascist than the Bush administration…unless you think 700 billion bank bailout is capitalism and locking up American citizens without habeus corpus is democracy. Or giving no-bid contracts to a VP’s old company is “transparency” or “free markets” at work.
Shall we digress? Great Obama wants universal health care…meanwhile every industrious and reasonably free-market country offer those things, so even that is becoming an irrelevant point. Especially considering HC is becoming more of an unalienable right, even w/o Constitutional authority.
Anyways.
My actual points were unsubstantiated claims that try and confuse people. The Anti-SG movement uses what the anti-Obama movement uses: Fear. Anti-Smart Growth movement will use density and transit to scare people without a damned explanation of the issues at hand. OMGz…oh noes…density I am going to have to drink lattes now and be liberal and ride the bus next to homelesss people. Afterall, density means city and cities have bums aahhh!!!!
Meanwhile ask any person to name 5 places they would like to visit or (have visited that they enjoyed) and most places they mention would:
a) be a fairly dense setting
b) be in a nice rural setting
c) have complete streets, nice urban centers, transit access, pedestrian qualities, small town feel, etc., etc.
Great, Smart Growth tries to address all of those issues that make memorable spaces and places. And don’t be fooled into believing it’s about freedom and choice. Give that same anti-SG zealot a chance to derail a mixed-use urban development near their (sprawl) home and they’ll be the biggest NIMBY you’ve ever seen.
ws: I would classify Bush as having been absolutely fascist, no question about it. The worst part of the legacy of Bush is that he is held up by the mainstream media, the left, and even some on the right as an example of “free-market capitalism.” He was anything but that. In fact, Bush was so NOT a free-market capitalist, despite paying the term so much lip service, that he makes the previous two Democratic presidents look like Ron Paul and Peter Schiff by comparison.
The best way to look at whether Smart Growth is really offering freedom and choice is to ask the simple question, “Can an individual opt out?” This means opting out completely — neither being forced to live in a NU community nor being forced to subsidize it through taxes. Virtually every Smart Growth initiative you’ve ever seen fails this test. Do it with nothing but private money and you’ll never hear a peep out of the Liberty Lobby.
And yes, Highwayman, before you open your pie hole, it’s just as wrong when taxes subsidize community planning at other densities comma so put a sock in it period.
Mike,
Thanks for the thorough reply.
The more I think on it the less clear it becomes. I’ll try anyway.
Is there any concern of Man in the Hayekian, free-market tradition which is not best resolved by the exchange of goods between individuals? Are there any issues which the laissez-faire rationale would allow to be legislated?
We do not fine murderers because those who could afford it would merely accept the fine when necessary. So as of now, we can say that murder is fairly out of commodification’s grasp (neglecting the study of the opportunity costs of becoming a judge or soldier whose only purpose was to effect death).
I’m thinking of environmentalism. This is a moral issue for those who defend it. For those who oppose it, it is typically economic (approached with laissez faire logic).
Simple like: A law is enacted, like though shall not murder, though shall not pollute. It is moral. It is a behavioral choice (Global Warming science notwithstanding, the alternative rarely mentioned by the Greens is to Live and Let Die – ashes to ashes and dust to dust).
The Hayekians oppose the law on many fronts: the pollution should be commodified and traded. There shouldn’t be market intervention. Etc.
For these moral laws, these restrictive regulatory laws, as a general method, what does laissez faire propose? Is it not to have any moral laws? That is, no regulations against murder (which constrains the very real market of the assassin).
My understanding is the government shouldn’t direct the market because it can’t do it efficiently. But it seems these moral issues are not about market efficiency. Market inefficiency is a secondary consequence.
Politics is very real. There will always be someone clamoring for protection (either moral or market protection). There will always be a source of power which can be persuaded to offer that protection (for that fair market price, of course). How does the philosophy of laissez faire accept this very real condition of the human experience? Does it ignore it? Does it wish it out of existence?
It just seems for the last twenty years there is an absolute interpretation of free markets which, in its utopian form, would have NO form of government (if we believe that all government is moral regulation).
Virtually every Smart Growth initiative you’ve ever seen fails this test.
As do most of the McSuburbs you see.
DS
Sorry for the rambling, end of the week.
Basically the question is this: in laissez faire, what is not commodifiable? And who is to decide what is and what isn’t commodifiable? More specifically, in the econ literature, who deals with this?
Mike:“Virtually every Smart Growth initiative you’ve ever seen fails this test. Do it with nothing but private money and you’ll never hear a peep out of the Liberty Lobby.”
ws:But why the hasn’t Liberty Lobby railed against the status-quo suburbia? They are players in what you mentioned above, too.
First, to the ads – I found the cute, witty but there again I HATE smart growth with a passion. The amount of government money being thrown at it to ‘convince’ us that we want to live there, that we SHOULD live there is obscene. I don’t like city living, I especially hate core city living and I hate my tax dollar being spent trying to convince otherwise. Yes, I’d rather subsidy the ‘evil’ suburbs than subsidize urban living.
Is it socialism? Depends on how you define that term. If it’s ignoring individuals and pushing a collective mentality, then yes it is socialism (and happens to be the way I see it). Is Obama a socialist, according to the definition I used, yes. We are not Borgs, we do not belong to the collective – heck we aren’t even France (thank God).
Back to these ads, I liked them, but there again, I dislike Obama and I dislike socialism.
The amount of government money being thrown at it to ‘convince’ us that we want to live there, that we SHOULD live there is obscene.
AM talk radio parody notwithstanding, what is the dollar figure for this obscene activity? Please share how much of our money is being spent by providing a number for us.
Best,
D
This is turning into a health care forum…the liars are coming in. Just like I said!
Like the NHS in the UK? There’s a place for both the public & private sectors.
I listened to the last of the three listed above about the Charrette thing happening around the country including locally here in Fresno.
The audio spot attempts to make fun of the charrette meetings, in a harsh and demeaning way. I don’t think this method works at all as a general audience audio spot. People don’t like those who appear mean spirited, even if they happen to be correct. This spot is definitely mean spirited.
t g, I’ll give an attempt at a reply.
“Is there any concern of Man in the Hayekian, free-market tradition which is not best resolved by the exchange of goods between individuals? Are there any issues which the laissez-faire rationale would allow to be legislated?”
Both the Austrian school and Objectivist schools would place physical security as a noncommodifiable good that doesn’t work in laissez-faire and is rightfully consigned to government; i.e. military and police protection. The free market offers options for those who demand even further personal protection, such as security guards, PIs, and the like, but these are limited to being a purchaser proxy and can only initiate retaliatory force or call the police. (Rent-a-cops are not legally permitted to preemptively “fight crime.”) The Libertarians are not consistent on this matter, firstly because they hold the non-initiation principle axiomatic (you’ll notice this axiom provides scant defense against a punch in the nose) and secondly because there is still room in their epistemology for the concept of overlapping and competing governments, as well as for anarchy. But I see that your question is directed toward environmentalism, so I’ll turn the focus to that and see if I can establish why it doesn’t fit within this framework.
“We do not fine murderers because those who could afford it would merely accept the fine when necessary. So as of now, we can say that murder is fairly out of commodification’s grasp (neglecting the study of the opportunity costs of becoming a judge or soldier whose only purpose was to effect death).”
Right. Governments are established and vested with the exclusive authority to wield initiatory force in order to protect the individual rights of the governed.
“I’m thinking of environmentalism. Simple like: A law is enacted, like though shall not murder, though shall not pollute. It is moral.”
It would depend on the provisions of this law whether it was moral. An individual who wishes to pollute his own property should have the absolute right to do so, provided the pollution is contained therein. Of course, that’s the rub: generally pollution is not containable in this fashion. When we look at what that law would have to require in order to do what it purports to do. Suppose I lived next door to you and ran a slaughterhouse. That slaughterhouse produces waste, including land, air, and water pollution. I would almost certainly be interfering with your quiet enjoyment of your property. In that respect, my pollution is actually depriving you of property, and would be the moral equivalent of my burning down your house. Physically it’s not the same, and the necessary remedy would be proportionally different, but morally what has happened is exactly the same thing: deprivation of property. Whether this is a civil or criminal matter would depend on my mens rea.
“The Hayekians oppose the law on many fronts: the pollution should be commodified and traded. There shouldn’t be market intervention. Etc.”
In a sense, this exists now and could continue to do so. How would we remedy my pollution? Assuming a civil disagreement between parties (that I didn’t set up the slaughterhouse with the intention of harming your health or driving you away), most likely you would be able to win a court judgment against me for the value of your property and the time and inconvenience of moving, or else a judgment that I had to shut down my slaughterhouse or relocate it. In any of these outcomes, the court system (a legitimate government function for either Hayek or Rand) serves its purpose precisely. The free market works fine here inasmuch as we are both free to consult private attorneys, who would be able to tell us that the case would cost X amount, the likely outcome would be Y, and if we settled for a certain amount we could avoid those costs.
(Aside: An attorney I worked for during law school once said that if a case ever goes to court, someone screwed up badly. Either a party is misevaluating the value of their claim or their odds of winning, or a party’s attorney has failed to accurately convey one of those two things. This is the result of modern “panacea discovery” laws that prevent parties from trying to play “hide the ball” to win litigation.)
“For these moral laws, these restrictive regulatory laws, as a general method, what does laissez faire propose? Is it not to have any moral laws? That is, no regulations against murder (which constrains the very real market of the assassin).”
Certainly not, as I’ve covered above. A free market cannot exist where people are subject to harm by force or fraud. It is the proper purpose of government to deal with these matters.
“My understanding is the government shouldn’t direct the market because it can’t do it efficiently. But it seems these moral issues are not about market efficiency. Market inefficiency is a secondary consequence.”
In the case of murder, absolutely right. In the case of pollution… well, as you’ve seen above, this is more of a civil matter. (Whatever exceptions may exist, generally people don’t create pollution in order to harm others. Pollution is typically a byproduct of another activity.) It is appropriate for governments to maintain a court system to resolve these disputes and enforce property laws, and the free market is capable of operating at the vertices between that court system and the individual citizen.
“Politics is very real. There will always be someone clamoring for protection (either moral or market protection). There will always be a source of power which can be persuaded to offer that protection (for that fair market price, of course). How does the philosophy of laissez faire accept this very real condition of the human experience? Does it ignore it? Does it wish it out of existence?”
Fair to say. There is some moral and market protection that individuals are entitled to, and that they are right to demand from their government. Protection against force or fraud. Laissez-faire not only accepts this, but depends on it. The free market can only function when individuals have the plenary power to contract according to mutual agreement free of any coercion. Any governmental function not tied to the protection of individual rights against force or fraud (or the necessary infrastructure to effect that protection) is not considered a legitimate function of government under the Austrian school or Objectivism. Again, Libertarianism disagrees in some respects. As you note, politics is real. The political stance of a Hayek or Rand follower then, is to oppose initiative or legislation to expand government beyond its legitimate purposes, even when the public thinks “it’d be really keen to have the government just handle all our X for us.” All one has to do is look at the state-run liquor stores in Utah to see where that kind of governmental expansion leads.
“It just seems for the last twenty years there is an absolute interpretation of free markets which, in its utopian form, would have NO form of government (if we believe that all government is moral regulation).”
I can agree that this interpretation does seem to have emerged more and more lately. I can only speculate, but I suggest that this may be mainly the growing influence of the Libertarian epistemology. The Libertarians have been the most successful third party in the modern era, and Nozick’s arguments seem very convincing. The problem is that Libertarian epistemology is flawed, and you’re seeing here some of the consequences of those flaws. It can fail when one breaks down the seams between public and private activity where there are issues that affect people commonly, such as environmentalism. (Another such issue is epidemiology.) The Libertarians are kind of like the 2003-2006 Phoenix Suns or the 2001-2005 Philadelphia Eagles in this way. Even at their most dominant, they had a fatal flaw that prevented them from ever truly prevailing in the end.
Appreciate the perspective, Mike.
Another question if you get bored: continuing with the judicial resolution of externalities, what standards would you see as economically ideal for selecting judges?
If there are standards of judicial selection necessary to preserve a truly free market (that is, if judges must rule in a pre-determined way in which the market is not politicized in the ways Tyler Cohen recently wrote of), it would seem that ultimately that could not survive not survive the vagaries of the electorate.
Mike, it might help of you use the italicize or bold html tags around quotes. I’m not sure you’re aware of them or not.
abc123 = abc123
abc123 = abc123
Just don’t use the periods in the code.
d’oh, it deleted my example somehow.
http://www.tizag.com/htmlT/htmlitalic.php
ws: You’re right; I know the HTML tags. I’m just damned lazy. 🙂
t g: I don’t have my copy of The Road to Serfdom immediately to hand, so I can’t quote, but I think Hayek’s position was sound in principle. If I recall correctly, it is essentially: As long as the underlying laws are both objective and transparent, and as long as the legal system is objective and transparent, the danger of a corrupt judge becomes much less. A system based on objective facts that provides transparency also provides the possibility of unlimited scrutiny. A judge who knows his decisions are subject to unlimited scrutiny can have no legitimate expectation of being able to rule in a manner repugnant to the objective laws and the facts of the case, and a populace that understands this limitation can have no legitimate expectation that a judge would be subject to improper influence, whether through some aspect of his selection process or when that judge is seated on the bench.
One might assume that Hayek would allow for the anonymization of the names of minors, and similar such things, in a modern approach to his system. The electronic privacy era was still half a century in the future at the time he wrote TRTS. Based on his position, I’m not sure whether he’s suggesting that election, merit appointment, partisan appointment, or some other method is superior, because he seems to be saying that the selection method will be irrelevant if the conditions of practice are sufficiently exacting and knowable.