Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: How Zoning Rules Would Work in a Free Society

  1. #1

    How Zoning Rules Would Work in a Free Society

    How Zoning Rules Would Work in a Free Society




    06/17/2009
    Ben O'Neill


    It is well known that the libertarian political philosophy is antagonistic to coercively imposed rules that limit people's freedom to use their private property as they see fit. Indeed, the very essence of libertarianism is the nonaggression principle that condemns the initiation of force against person or property. As a result, libertarians have been critical of zoning laws, which restrict the ability of property owners to develop their property or use it for their desired purposes.[1]

    Because of this antipathy to zoning laws, some critics of libertarianism fear that a libertarian society would leave people incapable of exercising any control over their neighborhood and preserving the character of their surroundings. They worry that the decisions of surrounding property owners could change the character of their neighborhood to the detriment of their property values or preferred lifestyle. For example, some may worry that their local park will be developed into a housing complex leaving them with nowhere to take their children to play. Others worry that their neighbors may build huge structures that overshadow their now sunny backyards. Whatever their specific concerns, many people share the view that zoning laws are required to prevent their neighborhood from being despoiled by outrageous building developments or uses.

    Fears of inappropriate building development or drastic changes to the character of a neighborhood are often grossly exaggerated. Some are inclined to fear that without the protection of coercive zoning laws a skyscraper might be built in a small suburban neighborhood or a brothel might open up next to a children's preschool. However, even in the absence of any restrictions, the possibility of such outcomes is extremely remote and fears that the repeal of zoning laws would open the floodgates to outrageous developments such as these are overstated.[2]


    Building developments and commercial usage of buildings are almost always strongly driven by the desire for profit and therefore they will almost always cater to the tastes of prospective property purchasers and customers. There is not likely to be much demand for residential or commercial space in a skyscraper towering over a sleepy suburban area, simply because such a tall development would unnecessarily and wastefully economize on cheap and ample ground space, leading to excessive expense. Similarly, no brothel worth its salt would choose to open next door to a children's preschool (or at least operate during school hours) since this would almost certainly drive away potential customers. In general, developments such as these are avoided simply by the desire of property owners and businesses to do business in an area that is suitable to their particular industry.

    Private property and voluntary zoning

    Contrary to the alleged necessity of zoning laws, there is ample scope for noncoercive solutions to zoning issues in the context of a free society of private-property ownership and nonaggression. In particular, private ownership of property allows for restrictive covenants to be agreed between the property owner and another party so that the allowable uses of land are limited according to the wishes of the parties. It follows that property owners within a given neighborhood may contractually agree to impose restrictions on themselves with respect to the allowable developments on their land or the allowable uses of their property.


    In some cases, restrictive covenants may mimic the kinds of restrictions present in zoning laws and may therefore be used as a means of voluntary zoning. Property owners may agree to limit developments on their land to a certain height as in existing zoning laws; they may agree to paint their properties in a similar color scheme, as with some housing complexes; or they may agree to restrict the use of their property to particular uses, such as residential use.


    It is no mystery why private-property owners might voluntarily undertake to restrict their own property rights. They might do so for monetary payment or other valuable consideration. For example, some property owners might enter into restrictive covenants in order to secure similar restrictions on their neighbors. In such cases, a property owner would weigh off the benefit of having an enforceable restrictive covenant over his neighbor's property against the detriment these restrictions would cause his own property ownership. A property owner would also have regard not only to his own desired usage of his property, but also to the likely desires of prospective purchasers and the resultant effect on the market value of his property.


    Instead of relying on quid pro quo restrictions, a system of voluntary zoning would also allow people to purchase restrictive covenants from a willing party. For example, a man with a strong aversion to dogs in his neighborhood could seek to purchase a restrictive covenant preventing dogs from living on his neighbors' properties even if he does not desire any particular restrictive covenant being imposed on his own property (obviously he will not allow dogs there himself, but he does not need a restrictive covenant to do this). In such a case, the neighbor would consider whether or not the money offered is more valuable to him than his existing right to have dogs living on his property. Regardless of the particular preferences of the parties involved, voluntary agreement to a restrictive covenant would demonstrate ex ante gains to all parties to the covenant.[3]


    Voluntary zoning through private restrictive covenants already exists in areas where government has not imposed zoning laws. Such covenants have shown themselves to be perfectly adequate to protect property owners against adverse development by others.[4] Voluntary agreements for restrictions on the use of property also exist in apartment and townhouse developments where property owners govern common areas under a corporate arrangement. These arrangements exist even in areas in which there are existing government zoning laws, though they are often crowded out by these laws. Some complexes have restrictions on use (such as rules against pets), some complexes have restrictions on development or alterations, and some have rules requiring a certain uniform color scheme or aesthetic design for all properties.


    While some may prefer not to live in complexes such as this, where they are restricted by their neighbors in the use of their property, there can be no moral objection to this from a libertarian perspective so long as these arrangements are undertaken with the consent of property owners. Of course, in many cases, property owners will buy into a scheme with existing restrictions, but in this case the property title purchased is already restricted, and the restrictions therefore become a condition of their purchase.[5]


    Some may object that zoning rules involve substantial positive externalities and that voluntary zoning would result in a "free-rider problem" since those property owners who refuse to agree to restrictions may nonetheless benefit from the effects of restrictions agreed upon by other property owners. However, even if a property owner can safely rely on others to enforce restrictive covenants to his own benefit — and this is by no means certain — and even if such positive externalities lead to problems of economic efficiency, it is sheer economic nonsense to suggest that coercion is the proper means to solve these efficiency problems.[6]


    A property owner should not be compelled to join a restrictive covenant simply because he derives a benefit from a covenant between others. Nor should any other person be forced to contribute to the value of this unsolicited good. Any "free-rider problem" in this situation is merely an assertion of an inefficient underutilization of restrictive covenants, for which there are several available entrepreneurial solutions such as pledge contracts,[7] buyouts of property, and other voluntary arrangements. If property owners do not avail themselves of these voluntary options, then this is prima facie evidence that any such restrictions are not in their best interests so that no efficiency gains are possible.[8]

    Problems with government zoning

    Like most other government legislation, zoning laws are a violation of property rights. They involve forcibly imposing a restriction on legitimate private-property use through legislative fiat. A person, who has acquired property through homesteading or through voluntary trade with another person who legitimately owned the property, should rightly be able to use his property in any way that does not intrude upon the property rights of others.

    Some may argue that property rights are themselves restricted in scope to the conditions inherent in the initial land title, so that zoning rules may be built into the initial grant of land by government. Under this view, freehold title may be considered as granting reasonably wide property rights, whereas leasehold title grants narrower property rights, which are restricted by zoning or other rules. The problem with this position is that it implicitly assumes that government is the legitimate owner of all (otherwise) unowned land, so that property rights in this land are acquired by government grant and substantiated by government certificates of title.


    However, this position is incorrect. The right to property is not determined by government decree; it is determined by the objective principles of homesteading and voluntary trade. While government certificates of title may approximate genuine property rights and provide evidence of acquisition, they cannot grant property rights since the government holds no genuine rights over unowned land to begin with. In fact, most government certificates of title illegitimately specify restrictions on land use that are untenable according to the rules of homesteading.


    Aside from the coercive nature of government-imposed zoning laws — which is itself sufficient reason for objection — these restrictions are also far less likely to accord well with the preferences of local residents than systems of voluntary zoning undertaken between the residents themselves. Indeed, the fact that these restrictions are imposed without the consent of property owners demonstrates that they are not in accordance with the desired arrangements of at least some of those property owners. Moreover, lacking an unhampered private market in property titles and restrictive covenants, the government has no means of rational economic calculation of people's preferences when imposing zoning rules. Regardless of their intentions, government officials simply cannot weigh the pros and cons (to local residents) of proposed restrictions, since they have no rational objective means of economic calculation. For these reasons, it should come as no surprise that zoning laws are one of the most controversial areas of local governance, with many dissatisfied parties.


    Controversy over zoning laws is aggravated by the fact that coercive zoning laws must inevitably involve arbitrary bureaucratic discretion. Changes in communities — such as growth in population, changing demography, or growing or diminishing affluence — can give rise to new demands for certain kinds of property and property uses, and the restrictions on property development and use must therefore be adapted to suit changing demands. In the case of voluntary zoning, restrictions like this will occur by renegotiating existing arrangements and providing consideration to induce covenant holders to allow changing restrictions. This ensures that rational economic calculation occurs. However, in the case of government-imposed zoning laws, this will instead involve political advocacy and political decision making — in particular, zoning laws will inevitably involve substantial discretionary power being arrogated to government bureaucrats and being exercised without recourse to any rational means of economic calculation.


    In addition to the calculation problem involved in coercive zoning laws, these laws also make the enforcement of restrictions more remote for the actual people involved with the property in question. Whereas a system of voluntary zoning gives direct enforceability to individual property owners and covenant holders, a system of government-imposed zoning laws gives control to their political masters, bureaucrats and politicians.[9] This relocation of the locus of decision making entirely changes the character of the decision and the incentives involved.[10] Property owners and covenant holders have intimate direct knowledge of local conditions and are motivated by their desire to improve their amenities and property value. On the other hand, bureaucrats and politicians in charge of zoning issues usually lack this intimate local knowledge and are instead motivated primarily by job security, predicated on political popularity. As with other forms of coercive top-down planning, the accumulation of decision-making power in these political bodies renders the zoning process less responsive to the genuine needs of affected residents — and more responsive to political lobbying.
    Because zoning problems involve continually changing local conditions, bureaucrats and politicians are inevitably vested with substantial discretionary power in the creation and enforcement of restrictions. As with other forms of political power vested in the government, this discretionary power is inevitably exercised in favor of those groups who support the power of the decision makers. In a representative democracy, a local property owner, affected by zoning decisions, is merely another face in the crowd whose power over zoning decisions is limited to his political influence with the local council. As a result, most people have little ability to exercise control over the zoning decisions in the neighborhood in which their property is located. Instead, such a process is liable to be overly influenced by politically influential groups, such as wealthy property developers or highly organized groups of perennial busybodies.[11] In some cases, local residents may successfully band together to influence the decisions of their political masters, but this is by no means guaranteed, and their property rights are highly insecure as a result.


    In fact, like other discretionary bureaucratic rules that allow interference with property rights, zoning rules allow bureaucrats and politicians to hold developers and other property owners to ransom. Even in the course of arguing in favor of zoning laws, law professor Bradley Karkkainen nonchalantly tells us that, while zoning laws may appear to completely prohibit certain developments, the reality is a little different:
    In fact, zoning functions more like a "property rule" [a rule protecting an entitlement by injunctive relief], allowing neighborhood residents (or their governmental representatives) to enjoin a proposed development that does not conform to current zoning, while leaving room for the would-be developer to "buy" the entitlement to build through design concessions, campaign contributions, and the like.[12]
    Here we see the real nature and purpose of zoning laws. Since such laws invest discretionary control over property development and use in our "governmental representatives," these laws allow political parties and other political interest groups to extort funding from wealthy developers — funding that is usually forthcoming.[13]



    In addition to being inherently corrupt, this practice of extorting money from property developers often leads to a quid pro quo in which governments use coercion to assist wealthy developers in acquiring land and trampling on the legitimate property rights of others (through eminent domain laws or other coercive means). One commonly hears the complaint that local governments are in the pockets of developers, but it is rarely appreciated that this is an inevitable consequence of the government's attempts to extort support from developers through coercive zoning laws. This is just one manifestation of the inevitable regulatory and political capture that occurs when governments attempt to control private business.


    This neat little symbiotic arrangement, which is of great benefit to major political parties, may help to explain the large disparity between a highly critical academic literature[14] and the zoning policies of government. Over a decade ago, Professor Karkkainen noted that:
    Extensive academic literature critical of zoning has accumulated in the last twenty years, beginning with Bernard Siegan's landmark 1970 study lauding Houston's non-zoning approach, and followed shortly thereafter by Robert Ellickson's broader theoretical critique of zoning. Subsequent academic literature has been almost as uniformly critical of zoning as public policy has been uniformly in favor of it. Although few academic defenders of zoning have stepped forward, governmental decision-makers have proceeded with zoning apace, apparently untroubled by the academic onslaught.[15]
    Government zoning laws do not merely operate more arbitrarily and less efficiently than voluntary restrictive covenants, they also crowd out these private arrangements. In some cases this occurs because voluntary restrictive covenants are prevented by law or because the government arrogates to itself large areas of land and refuses to contractually restrict future development in these areas, relying instead on zoning laws that government officials can change unilaterally.[16] Indeed, one of the most common instances of controversy and anguish in local government administration occurs when a government sells or rezones previously vacant government land near to or inside existing residential areas for property development. Such cases show the illusory nature of zoning laws in binding government decisions. Even where voluntary restrictive covenants are not restricted by law, and government is not the owner of land that is subject to some proposed restriction, government-zoning laws often crowd out private arrangements simply by giving property owners the false assurance that "the government will take care of it." Thus, in addition to being inherently coercive, zoning laws derogate from more efficient and effective voluntary arrangements.
    Pollution, noise and property rights

    Of course, there is one situation in which libertarians countenance forcible restriction of property development or use without any contractual agreement. That is the case where the development or use of property is itself an aggression against another person or their property — that is, where a particular property development or use violates the property rights of another. This can occur in cases where a development or use of property produces excessive pollution or noise to surrounding properties or invades their space.[17] Thus, opening a coal-fire power station or an oil refinery in the middle of a residential neighborhood may legitimately be prevented by residents, since the pollution would involve a violation of their property rights.


    Force may legitimately be used only to prevent actual property invasions by others and not merely to prevent noninvasive actions that detrimentally impact upon our enjoyment of our property. For example, in the absence of some voluntary restrictive covenant, there is no inherent right to prevent one's neighbor from keeping a car body in his front yard or painting his garage an unsightly color. This is the case even if the aesthetic distaste for this ugliness is widespread, such that it impacts the market value of adjoining properties — there is no such thing as a right to preserve the value of one's property, only its physical integrity. Moreover, this is true regardless of whether one is speaking of the objective market value, the subjective value to the property owner, or any other measure of value.[18] People are entitled to protect the integrity of their property from invasive acts by others; they are not entitled to forcibly prevent legitimate acts by others merely to protect the market value of their property.



    Economic calculation and efficiency

    Notwithstanding that there is no inherent right to the subjective or market value of one's property, the existence of private-property rights and consequent market value is very useful for the purposes of economically efficient decision making. When property is privately owned and traded it acquires a monetary value, allowing it to be compared with other factors of production and use. This allows people to undertake rational economic calculation in matters involving property and property restrictions and thereby make decisions that do not squander scarce resources. Zoning restrictions that are formulated as enforceable property rights under voluntary restrictive covenants would be capable of creation or repeal by voluntary agreement, including agreements involving monetary payment. It follows that these restrictions would also acquire a monetary value, allowing for rational economic calculation and better economic efficiency. By knowing the monetary value of a restrictive covenant, people would be able to determine whether these assurances are worthwhile to them, when weighed off against other goods.


    In order to take advantage of the greater certainty and efficiency of voluntary zoning, property owners and others concerned about neighborhood development should seek the repeal of coercive zoning laws and the privatization of existing government land holdings. This would prevent voluntary development and use restrictions from being crowded out by government, and would allow property owners and others to enter into restrictive covenants that are adjudicated by objective contractual agreement rather than by the vicissitudes of political lobbying and bureaucratic whim.
    https://mises.org/library/how-zoning...k-free-society

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    just makes me think of "Dr. Yamamoto's Finest Kind Pediatric Hospital & Whorehouse".

  4. #3
    However the free market decides, just like for everything else.

  5. #4
    This article seems to primarily address cities.

    Counties often have "zoning", if you will, that restrict new businesses subject to approval of the board of aldermen.

    In counties that do have such laws on the books every property sold after the passage of those laws carries a contingency rider with the deed that assures compliance with the county's regulation(s) concerning new businesses.

    Given the discussion yesterday about the chicken plant in Ne. how would you apply this theory?

  6. #5
    Fears of inappropriate building development or drastic changes to the character of a neighborhood are often grossly exaggerated. Some are inclined to fear that without the protection of coercive zoning laws a skyscraper might be built in a small suburban neighborhood or a brothel might open up next to a children's preschool. However, even in the absence of any restrictions, the possibility of such outcomes is extremely remote and fears that the repeal of zoning laws would open the floodgates to outrageous developments such as these are overstated.[2]


    Building developments and commercial usage of buildings are almost always strongly driven by the desire for profit and therefore they will almost always cater to the tastes of prospective property purchasers and customers. There is not likely to be much demand for residential or commercial space in a skyscraper towering over a sleepy suburban area, simply because such a tall development would unnecessarily and wastefully economize on cheap and ample ground space, leading to excessive expense. Similarly, no brothel worth its salt would choose to open next door to a children's preschool (or at least operate during school hours) since this would almost certainly drive away potential customers. In general, developments such as these are avoided simply by the desire of property owners and businesses to do business in an area that is suitable to their particular industry.
    This is well and good. In theory. Excepting some businesses have a profit incentive that would far outweigh any negatives. Such as the chicken processing plant in this thread. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ng-Way-of-Life
    A processing plant profits would far outweigh any future litigation, therefore there would not be any disincentive for them not to build in an area that does not want them.

    Of course, there is one situation in which libertarians countenance forcible restriction of property development or use without any contractual agreement. That is the case where the development or use of property is itself an aggression against another person or their property — that is, where a particular property development or use violates the property rights of another. This can occur in cases where a development or use of property produces excessive pollution or noise to surrounding properties or invades their space.[17] Thus, opening a coal-fire power station or an oil refinery in the middle of a residential neighborhood may legitimately be prevented by residents, since the pollution would involve a violation of their property rights.
    And in the context of the other thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ng-Way-of-Life this is exactly what the residents chose to do regarding the chicken processing plant.

  7. #6
    If it wasn't for zoning law, then neighbors would have to talk to each other and figure out amicable resolutions to grievances. They'd have to have relationships with each other and treat each other with respect in order to get what they want.

    With zoning law, all that needs to be done is to pick up the phone and make one call, and assert that a law is being broken. Then a gang of armed thugs who don't really know the law at all respond, and if there is any resistance, someone gets murdered.

    I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that. Certain people prefer the first option, and certain people prefer the second option. More people prefer the murder option. I don't think we're going to change minds by explaining to them that they can get their neighborhood controlled in another fashion. They've already decided murder is an acceptable outcome to get what they want.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    If it wasn't for zoning law, then neighbors would have to talk to each other and figure out amicable resolutions to grievances. They'd have to have relationships with each other and treat each other with respect in order to get what they want.

    With zoning law, all that needs to be done is to pick up the phone and make one call, and assert that a law is being broken. Then a gang of armed thugs who don't really know the law at all respond, and if there is any resistance, someone gets murdered.

    I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that. Certain people prefer the first option, and certain people prefer the second option. More people prefer the murder option. I don't think we're going to change minds by explaining to them that they can get their neighborhood controlled in another fashion. They've already decided murder is an acceptable outcome to get what they want.
    Talking with a neighbor is well and good. In a perfect world things would be worked out amicably. But, this is not a perfect world. As opposed to zoning I would prefer a general 3 man moderation on issues. Each side picks one judge each (presumably sympathetic to their side), both sides pick a third judge that they believe will be neutral. Both sides agree to the eventual outcome.
    However the impetus of this post regarded an industrial processing plant. This hardly had anything to do with neighbors being neighborly but about citizens not wanting a big-ag processing plant in their back yard.
    I think the two are slightly different.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    This article seems to primarily address cities.

    Counties often have "zoning", if you will, that restrict new businesses subject to approval of the board of aldermen.

    In counties that do have such laws on the books every property sold after the passage of those laws carries a contingency rider with the deed that assures compliance with the county's regulation(s) concerning new businesses.

    Given the discussion yesterday about the chicken plant in Ne. how would you apply this theory?

    That's coercion; mafia.... you can't contract with your fellow man unless you also contract with us.

    In order to take advantage of the greater certainty and efficiency of voluntary zoning, property owners and others concerned about neighborhood development should seek the repeal of coercive zoning laws and the privatization of existing government land holdings. This would prevent voluntary development and use restrictions from being crowded out by government, and would allow property owners and others to enter into restrictive covenants that are adjudicated by objective contractual agreement rather than by the vicissitudes of political lobbying and bureaucratic whim.


    Alternatively... you could get together with all of the neighbors that are currently under the jurisdiction of the current zoning laws... and form a parallel contract whereby you all formally agree to them. "We, landowners, all hereby agree there shall be no nuke plants allowed on any of our properties, and all deeds passed shall carry said restriction." Then all signed are bound by voluntary contract in parallel to gov't edict. Then upon repealing the edicts, the parallel contracts immediately fill in the void.

    I think you get into trouble, ala HOA, when you involve binding yourself to the future opinions of future "aldermen"; rather than concrete contractual terms.

    "No nuke plants" is much safer contractually... than "all building decisions must be approved by local home owner mafia"; which will tend toward the politically connected getting variances and the less connected having land value depressed because they can't get variances.


    Its also much safer to be involved in a contract with time limit; "we all agree no nuke plants for the next 99 years" is better than "no nuke plants"
    Last edited by presence; 05-03-2016 at 10:22 AM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...




  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    That's coercion; mafia.... you can't contract with your fellow man unless you also contract with us.
    That's not attempting to apply O'Neil's theory......



    property owners and others concerned about neighborhood development should seek the repeal of coercive zoning laws
    Property owners should seek to align their neighbors in order to use the strength of the group (mafia like or government like) to escape clauses of a contract they already signed...




    There might be areas of the country where land is free of encumbrances where chicken processing facilities may be built without contest?

    I wouldn't buy property in such an area due to my need to be hospitable to my clientele....And I certainly wouldn't homestead an area where the 40 acres next-door could be used for a landfill. People are killed and multi-generation feuds start over less...

    The idea used locally, an elected board of aldermen who live in the county has worked well for both my fathers and my generations that I have first hand knowledge of......And I can absolutely go to any of their homes on a Sunday evening and be welcomed in.........

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    Alternatively... you could get together with all of the neighbors that are currently under the jurisdiction of the current zoning laws... and form a parallel contract whereby you all formally agree to them. "We, landowners, all hereby agree there shall be no nuke plants allowed on any of our properties, and all deeds passed shall carry said restriction." Then all signed are bound by voluntary contract.

    I think you get into trouble, ala HOA, when you involve binding yourself to the future opinions of future "aldermen"; rather than concrete contractual terms.

    "No nuke plants" is much safer contractually... than "all building decisions must be approved by local home owner mafia"; which will tend toward the politically connected getting variances and the less connected having land value depressed because they can't get variances.
    I type one fingered.......... Can't keep up.

    HOA situations are different in many regards than the clauses regarding parcel sales in rural areas, they're the same in many regards too...

    Where I see contention coming into play is when Joe Blow doesn't want to abide by the terms of a contract he has agreed to...

    People who buy into suburban neighborhoods must exercise extreme caution and those who are property owners anywhere must diligently keep abreast of the antics of their aldermen...........

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Talking with a neighbor is well and good. In a perfect world things would be worked out amicably. But, this is not a perfect world. As opposed to zoning I would prefer a general 3 man moderation on issues. Each side picks one judge each (presumably sympathetic to their side), both sides pick a third judge that they believe will be neutral. Both sides agree to the eventual outcome.
    However the impetus of this post regarded an industrial processing plant. This hardly had anything to do with neighbors being neighborly but about citizens not wanting a big-ag processing plant in their back yard.
    I think the two are slightly different.
    I wasn't in that thread. But I do have neighbors on both sides of me running businesses.
    The one on the West side of me has lived here for over a decade and has had various neighbors call the county on her for running a business in the home, call the county because she had more than one package delivery truck come through the neighborhood every day, call the county because her son (and employee) was parking on the street instead of in her driveway, etc, etc.

    She learned nothing from the experience, because the neighbor on the East moved in and literally got screwed by the county. He bought the house specifically because it was big enough for his wife to run a 12-child daycare in it. Right after he closed on the house, the county reduced the number of kids for an unlicensed daycare to 9. So he's been fighting to get 12 kids in the daycare since he moved in... and the most vocal critic of this, the person who has been at all the hearings screaming no the loudest, has been my other neighbor, who already went through all this "county says" bull$#@!.

    That has always been my experience. It doesn't matter whether people have been on the wrong end of the state. They always go crawling back to it. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a chicken processing plant, or a daycare. If someone doesn't like it, they're not going to give up their murder squad.

    Your 3 man moderation sounds great. It's also exactly what I was talking about before: being forced to deal with your neighbors in a civilized fashion. There are tons of ways to be civilized about it. Nobody wants to hear it.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I wasn't in that thread. But I do have neighbors on both sides of me running businesses.
    The one on the West side of me has lived here for over a decade and has had various neighbors call the county on her for running a business in the home, call the county because she had more than one package delivery truck come through the neighborhood every day, call the county because her son (and employee) was parking on the street instead of in her driveway, etc, etc.

    She learned nothing from the experience, because the neighbor on the East moved in and literally got screwed by the county. He bought the house specifically because it was big enough for his wife to run a 12-child daycare in it. Right after he closed on the house, the county reduced the number of kids for an unlicensed daycare to 9. So he's been fighting to get 12 kids in the daycare since he moved in... and the most vocal critic of this, the person who has been at all the hearings screaming no the loudest, has been my other neighbor, who already went through all this "county says" bull$#@!.

    That has always been my experience. It doesn't matter whether people have been on the wrong end of the state. They always go crawling back to it. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a chicken processing plant, or a daycare. If someone doesn't like it, they're not going to give up their murder squad.

    Your 3 man moderation sounds great. It's also exactly what I was talking about before: being forced to deal with your neighbors in a civilized fashion. There are tons of ways to be civilized about it. Nobody wants to hear it.
    State and murder squad............

    I notice your property is smack-dab in the middle of contention central what with neighbors bickering and changing contract terms....

    At what point does "The State" cease and "The citizens of the county" begin?

    Is this point different for a township?

    Why would I be prosecuted for murdering the chicken house staff but "Their Murder Squad" wouldn't?

    Is there a line that never moves where you mind your own business and everybody else minds theirs, where nobody infringes on their neighbor?

    Is it okay for a group of citizens to form a posse and enforce edicts to their benefit?

  15. #13
    I'm brought to think of some neighbors growing up.......

    4-5 farms down the hill a family had an exquisite pond in their front pasture, 10 acres minimum and chock full of fish but posted plainly "No Fishing" on every fence post along the road...Now the county sheriff lived up the hill a ways toward our farm yet he was never called or involved in enforcing the "No Fishing" stipulation and there were lots of kids around........

    Many of us in my generation got treated to 12ga rocksalt for trying to fish that pond, turns out that had been going on for at least 2 generations without one single call to the law..

    I know I got grounded when I got peppered and my dad made me go apologize for trespassing...

    I wonder how it is today...........Next time I go check on what's left of the family farm I'll stop and ask..........

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I wasn't in that thread. But I do have neighbors on both sides of me running businesses.
    The one on the West side of me has lived here for over a decade and has had various neighbors call the county on her for running a business in the home, call the county because she had more than one package delivery truck come through the neighborhood every day, call the county because her son (and employee) was parking on the street instead of in her driveway, etc, etc.

    She learned nothing from the experience, because the neighbor on the East moved in and literally got screwed by the county. He bought the house specifically because it was big enough for his wife to run a 12-child daycare in it. Right after he closed on the house, the county reduced the number of kids for an unlicensed daycare to 9. So he's been fighting to get 12 kids in the daycare since he moved in... and the most vocal critic of this, the person who has been at all the hearings screaming no the loudest, has been my other neighbor, who already went through all this "county says" bull$#@!.

    That has always been my experience. It doesn't matter whether people have been on the wrong end of the state. They always go crawling back to it. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a chicken processing plant, or a daycare. If someone doesn't like it, they're not going to give up their murder squad.

    Your 3 man moderation sounds great. It's also exactly what I was talking about before: being forced to deal with your neighbors in a civilized fashion. There are tons of ways to be civilized about it. Nobody wants to hear it.
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    State and murder squad............

    I notice your property is smack-dab in the middle of contention central what with neighbors bickering and changing contract terms....

    At what point does "The State" cease and "The citizens of the county" begin?

    Is this point different for a township?

    Why would I be prosecuted for murdering the chicken house staff but "Their Murder Squad" wouldn't?

    Is there a line that never moves where you mind your own business and everybody else minds theirs, where nobody infringes on their neighbor?

    Is it okay for a group of citizens to form a posse and enforce edicts to their benefit?


    I'm really curious about these two questions.......

    Throwing around terms like "state" and "murder squad" in relation to local matters being decided by local people bothers me...

    Are the locals who represent your will "the state" or "murder squads" or only if they oppose your will?

    Would they have to be from another county to be considered "the state"?

    Would you forego the ability to conspire with your neighbors to achieve common goals in order to avoid being labeled "the state"?

    How about common defense..........If neighbors band together in order to keep the peace at what point do they magically transform into "murder squads"?

  17. #15
    Is it okay for a group of citizens to form a posse and enforce edicts to their benefit?
    no, voluntary interaction with my fellow man, else it is "territorial state coercion"

    the question is do I own my property? or does the state own my property and permit it to me?

    the voluntary sovereign view is that we seek no permission for the non-violent act.

    Are the locals who represent your will "the state" or "murder squads" or only if they oppose your will?
    if locals do their own thing on their own property, god bless them.
    if locals tell me what to do with my property, $#@! them.

    Would they have to be from another county to be considered "the state"?
    state connotes monopoly on violence in a given territory.

    Would you forego the ability to conspire with your neighbors to achieve common goals in order to avoid being labeled "the state"?
    only if my co-conspirators seek to use violent or thieving means to reach their desired ends

    How about common defense..........If neighbors band together in order to keep the peace at what point do they magically transform into "murder squads"?
    defense; one's natural authority to extend violence to meet violence ends when you are no longer being actively attacked
    in the natural order, with property rights, without the state... this might result in restitution, banishment, indentured servitude, or excommunication

    I think one of the elements of this discussion missing is the notion of private roads. After all... we want the whole damn thing if we want any of it.

    It is easy to point out major features which would not exist. Notably all roads and streets would be private, not public. In the U.S. government maintains virtually all thoroughfares, offering unrestrained travel over vast expanses to threatening persons. A person known to intend murder, if not presently imprisoned by the state, can travel unchallenged through that public space almost to the doorstep of every private property. This would not be.
    http://freenation.org/a/f32h1.html


    If ownership of roads is private in a community rather than "public" then the owner of the local road system would play a role in regulating local commerce.


    Government subsidies to transportation, however, make large, centralized corporations artificially profitable, contributing to corporate dominance of the economy.[12] Carson points out that in many cases, centralized industry did not develop until after the advent of taxpayer-funded roads and other transportation projects.[13]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_roads


    So a community might have control over their road system by ownership of shares.
    Perhaps this contract is administrated by the decisions of "aldermen".
    Perhaps the aldermen decide no nuke plant parts shall pass.

    That seems fairly legit. Albeit it would be upon the owner to enforce this edict upon those who take easement of the road surreptitiously through trespass. Which goes back to the elements of free market possession: Recognized ownership, presence, and means to control.





    Perhaps in some other privately owned cluster of roads; owned by a single party rather than a syndicate of neighbors and benefactors... there is economic benefit in allowing nuke plant parts to pass.

    And there the plant is built.

    In the free market the baker isn't forced to bake gay cake; but may do so if he so chooses.


    Much more to ponder here, the thing I hold in my heart however is that contracts enter into voluntarily and a society which develops, emerges, and adapts organically to changing conditions will always be better than a state imposed and enforced with inadequate economic knowledge.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  18. #16
    So given that most people, not just some, are prone to violence........(Many have others wield it on their behalf)

    When you and your non-violent neighbors band together to forestall the chicken processing plant, or nuke plant or, or.......Does that make you "The State"?

    The verbiage and theory expressed leave me wondering...

    How about the odors, flies and disease inherent with poultry processing, is that "potential" or "imminent" violence or merely an aggravation?

    The 1100 "employees" whom you've never met and who have no ties to your community, who statistically are prone to various crimes against both people and property, are they to be considered "potential" or "imminent" threats to your family and property or merely an aggravation?

    The assertion was that by neighbors banding together and refusing to rescind clauses of a valid contract, (grant variances) that these people were "robbing" other people....

    Either I'm dumb as a box of rocks or this whole theory needs work.........



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •