City Council Rejects 184 Kent as "Piece of Trash"

Though I'm happy with the decision, I don't think anyone has the right to landmark a building or override it, other than it's owner.

Whatever happened to property rights in this country?

Posted by: iceberg at December 1, 2005 10:35 AM

nothingnew,

FYI, I've never had illicit drugs in my life. But hey, you're entitled to "run your mouth off" for all you like if it makes you feel all grown up.

Posted by: iceberg at December 1, 2005 12:44 PM

To Halden and his anonymous coconspirators,

The "free market" crowd here is not promoting to harm or oust low-income tenants, nor make NYC a "blah" city, or other things routinely considered "market failures".

What we do take is a principled stance against agression in all its forms. We recognize (or perhaps not) the sole right and provision of government to protect A and his property from the direct and indirect harms caused by B.

If B is not harming A or his property, than we think the government certainly has no business dictating terms to either A or B when engaging in capitalist acts between consenting adults.

That is the summation of the moral ethical argument against intrusive government and its adulators.

But in a matter of fact, we also happen to know, utilizing impeccable economic logic, that government intervention can do no better than market solutions, and in most situations, a whole deal less with lower efficiency. This is the consequentialist, or utiliatarian approach.

If historical buildings are truly important enough to be preserved, have no fear, there will be market participants who will be willing to partake in the preservation efforts VOLUNTARILY.

What preservationists are trying to do is force their narrow, selfish preference for old buildings across society. This is the important distinction. We "free marketers" may or may not have a preference towards what is to be considered a "good", but we are not willing to use state coercion to secure our preferences on the backs of others.

Posted by: iceberg at December 1, 2005 1:13 PM

nothingnew,

If you ever took care to read my post regarding the fate of the jail building, you would realize I was only making social commentary regarding one of the detrimental effects of the "war on drugs", which is costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year for a self-directed action which is not the business of the government to regulate.

I never outright advocated that anyone should take drugs, and furthermore, I have it in my opinion to hold an addict in low esteem and regard. But that changes not the right of an addict to harm or satiate himself according to his terms.

The force, or coercion I refer to is that of the government. Most people think that the government is always in the right to employ force, or to threaten it.

To demonstrate what I mean, I'll give you a pretend example: If you believe the government has the right to designate my vehicle a "car-mark", hence making it less valuable, or maybe even useless to its rightful owner, you are in essense sanctioning the use of government enforcement to uphold the law, however wise or silly the law may be.

I, above all, do not sanction force except in narrow circumstances- protection of life, liberty and property from the expropriation or abrogation by others. What then it all boils down to is that any government created law which takes those rights away is a gross violation of the non-agression principle, since the enforcement of the said law will be using force to hopefully accomplish an act of denying the right to life, liberty or property.

Hence, zoning, landmark, and rent regulation laws are those which government force is employed to prevent the owners of properties the right to build their property as they see fit, or negotiate their own rent contracts with their tenants.

But I never meant "force" in the sense that I know of a group or an individual who are employing direct force against others.

None the less, a preservationist on the LPC board, and their lackeys on this blog are essentially advocating force to have their preferences for preserving nicely arranged piles of stone enforced against the wishes and property rights of its rightful owner.

Think about that for a second, before you label me a "brick aficionado" or something else equally stupid.

Posted by: iceberg at December 1, 2005 2:21 PM

nothingnew,

"I don't see in any place where I asked for your views on the use of force. "

Reread your previous post which began "well iceberg do you have any evidence that preservationists are trying to force a landlord to do anything here?"

So I dont think that explaining what I mean by force is uncalled for.

Secondly, the government "allowing" somebody to utilize his property as he sees fit, can never be equated to the unjust use of force.

Third, I don't advocate for government sponsorship of protection services, I'd rather multiple private agencies provide it, to which I can voluntarily purchase their services. Thus you cannot say that I'm not principled against force, as I consider myself an anarchocapitalist, unlike Randians who support the ideals of limited government, like most upper-case Libertarians.

However your very witty references to Ayn Rand is so juvenile that I can safely say that you won't be persuaded with logic nor fact. The argument ends here. You can have all the last words if you wish.

Posted by: iceberg at December 1, 2005 3:38 PM

Roz,

-"Why so angry and uncivil?"
-"ICEBERG, You come across like Donald Rumsfeld with menstrual cramps. "

Pot, meet kettle.

I support preservation efforts, but not those coerced by outsiders. If I say I'm opposed to coercion, how does that make me less than civil?

I just think that forced preservation is unjust, because the ends don't justify the means in my book.

I also happen to think that I've been quite civil here, you will notice I haven't shouted "marxist", "socialist", "commie", or anything else untoward such as "crystal meth guy" and "icebag".

How I can then be accused of being uncivil? Something tells me that you can't refute my arguments against coercion, so you pretend to annoyed at my incivility, just to abuse that word for the last time.

And for someone who pretends to know anything about anarchism, I'm suprised he never heard of anarchocapitalism; it was a featured article about a month ago on Wikipedia. But than again, he probably never even heard of Spenser, Proudhon, Spooner, Tucker, H. George, Thoureau, L. Mises, M. Rothbard, or S.E. Konkin III.

Posted by: iceberg at December 1, 2005 7:07 PM