Another entry in what looks to be an ongoing “how statist-progressives think” series, this one from a comment by Fran on the Anonymous Liberal blog:
To me, a Libertarian philosophy is very enlightened, until it confronts reality.
Example: Libertarians oppose zoning, because it restricts a property owners rights.
Pro zoning: It allows people to purchase property with the expectation that they will not be overwhelmed by other property owners.
Examples:
1. Your suburban neighbor wants to start a nightclub on his legally owned property. Unwanted traffic, pedestrian and vehicles.
2. Your urban neighbor wants to delve into the science of genetic cloning. Something leaks.
3. Your suburban neighbor converts his house into a McDonalds…fast food traffic.Zoning to me is the compromise that we all make to live in a ‘relatively organized society’. No, it’s not perfect, but just like Democracy, it’s the worst form of govt except all the rest.
Never mind the microscopic likelihood of your neighbor turning his house into a McDonalds — for one thing, the cost of remodeling it to match the other locations is prohibitive. For sake of arguement, assume that this actually happens often enough to bother mentioning: so traffic increases, big whoop. Many other things happen that increase traffic, including there simply being a population increase. I don’t see anyone clamoring for local population-limit ordinances, despite the “problem” being the same — a matter of personal taste.
That’s beside the point though. The moral assumption behind this is that initiation of force is an acceptable response to a disagreement on aesthetics. If something so frivilous and — yeah, I’mma say it — elitist is fair game, what isn’t? And why?
I personally disapprove of similar interference in the name of propping up perceived property value, but at least that’s something tangible, sheesh…
Pingback: Freedom Democrats
is it really that simple, though? what if i put up solar panels on my southfacing roof, and then my neighbor to the south adds a second floor that blocks the sun, and my investment is ruined?
the point is that, one does not need to resort to hypothetically absurd examples to see the subtlties that are can come up in property disputes.
Considering the purpose solar panelling would serve, that doesn’t sound equivalent to complaining about possible traffic or mere looks, at least IMO. The examples described before yours don’t actually prevent people from using their homes as they see fit.
Even so, it still doesn’t follow that “there ought to be a law”. Barring the neighbor being an absolute jerk, one could always negotiate.
1 – if people actually knew how zoning worked, they wouldn’t be such big fans of it. We had a saying about zoning boards “cover for keeping the poor and middle class from doing what they want, while letting the rich do anything”. Honestly, if you had enough money, no zoning board was going to stand in your way (the law is actually in favor of the landowner in most cases, and if it isn’t, and you’re a big developer, you can always “negotiate” by threatening to build a trailer park).
2. As for the solar panel hypo, the question becomes, were you reasonable in assuming your neighbor would never want to build a second floor? It’s actually quite easily address by a common law court – no need for a zoning board or zoning regulations.