Why reduce the bloated govt. when you can raise taxes?

[humanmachinery]

That's the argument a great many libertarians take, because, y'know, regulating the use of property and money is always bad an' stuff.

It's horsecrap. Zoning laws were introduced in the 1920s, and suburban growth didn't begin until the late 1940s with Levittown. There are also several other first world nations with zoning laws, which retain vibrant cities and minimal levels of sprawl.

If you want to look at the culprits of sprawl, think of the Federal Highway Act of 1956, the FHA, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the Great American Streetcar Scandal, industrial land use patterns, redlining by real estate companies, and the race riots of the late 1960s.

There are more than two sides to just about any story. History is often a complex issue, drawn from many contributing factors, and full of unintended consequences.

[DetroitDad]

I won't go into the bulk of your epic [[it seemed to ramble from suburbs to lack of self-control to Delphic oracles--quite confusing, and not very well kept on point).

I just want to mention that I thought the development of expressways and the Interstate system was the real impetus behind suburban sprawl, because it made commuting farther less onerous.

Do you really think zoning law was the major "culprit" in forming the modern suburb?

No, but it contributed to the decline of the urban landscape, and contributed to the car dependant model.

I thought that post was pretty clear, though long winded. I think the problem is with some's inability to string together topics, or maybe you're right, maybe it's all crazy talk.

Of course, that doesn't make it wrong.

[ccbatson]

A car dependent model is a bad thing why? Other than the fact that it liberates individuals which is contrary to a oppressive socialist philosophy I mean.

[Stosh]

No, but it contributed to the decline of the urban landscape, and contributed to the car dependant model.

I thought that post was pretty clear, though long winded. I think the problem is with some's inability to string together topics, or maybe you're right, maybe it's all crazy talk.

Of course, that doesn't make it wrong.

Referencing the bold and italic above, in order:

1) You're the only one that thinks so.
2) That, you have right, mostly. Crazy talk indeed.
3) Yes, it does.

[Stosh]

A car dependent model is a bad thing why? Other than the fact that it liberates individuals which is contrary to a oppressive socialist philosophy I mean.

I'd prefer the socialistic philosophy to anything that you endorse. Thanks for playing.

[elganned]

A car dependent model is a bad thing why? Other than the fact that it liberates individuals which is contrary to a oppressive socialist philosophy I mean.

So you are saying that the country labored under an oppressive socialist philosophy until Henry Ford liberated everyone with the Model T?

[elganned]

I think the problem is with some's inability to string together topics...

I think rather my problem is with some's inability to stick to one point without rambling around and bringing in things which don't bear directly on the question.

[DetroitDad]

A car dependent model is a bad thing why? Other than the fact that it liberates individuals which is contrary to a oppressive socialist philosophy I mean.

It's not the car part that is a problem, it is the over dependence part.

[DetroitDad]

I think rather my problem is with some's inability to stick to one point without rambling around and bringing in things which don't bear directly on the question.

I was looking at the bigger picture I guess, and I suppose I have somewhat of an issue with being able to close my mind and overlook that systems and problems don't exist in a vacuum. I'll try a little harder in the future.

[elganned]

I was looking at the bigger picture I guess, and I suppose I have somewhat of an issue with being able to close my mind and overlook that systems and problems don't exist in a vacuum. I'll try a little harder in the future.

I'm sorry if I missed the connection between suburban sprawl and the Oracle at Delphos. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[DetroitDad]

I'm sorry if I missed the connection between suburban sprawl and the Oracle at Delphos. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

It is all connected grasshopper.

[humanmachinery]

A car dependent model is a bad thing why? Other than the fact that it liberates individuals which is contrary to a oppressive socialist philosophy I mean.

Liberation from large scale pollution and mineral waste, enormous traffic jams, increased road construction costs, bloated land use from parking structures, and longer travel times?

Large scale vehicle ownership is only "liberating" if you buy into Ludwig Von Mises and Friedrich Von Hayek's premise that the rights of property ownership are the central axiom upon which all civilization is based, and from which all subsequent rights flow.

I find this idea beyond horrifying. It means there is no distinction between social values and monetary values. A thing or person is only worth what you can get for it on the open market.

I posit that freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom from undue harm, and freedom of volition all take precedent over the freedom of commerce.

The very notion of commerce depends upon all these other freedoms, and thus it must be subordinated. Commerce is an act, and ll actions have consequences. Your freedom to act ends where it infringes upon the more basic freedoms of other persons.

i.e.: "your right to swing ends at another person's nose."

[elganned]

It means there is no distinction between social values and monetary values. A thing or person is only worth what you can get for it on the open market.

In your view then, Von Mises and Von Hayek would find slavery acceptable? Not looking to start a fight, just asking.

[elganned]

It is all connected grasshopper.

Sunspots and my ingrown toenails are also connected, by that reasoning, but that doesn't mean you can build a coherent argument out of that fact for, say, keeping the red lights at the top of the traffic signals instead of moving them to the bottom.

Unless, of course, there's some record of the Delphic Oracle pronouncing on all three.

[ccbatson]

All of the negatives of a car dependent culture, in an open market system, correct themselves...How so? More and wider roads, catalytic converters, private infrastructure expansion, population geographic migration, etc.

Regarding property rights being a central value...yes they are, but not for the myopic reasons you believe. Try the objectivist philosophy for real and rational explanations. In particular, I refer you to Ayn Rand's book "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal"

[Stosh]

All of the negatives of a car dependent culture, in an open market system, correct themselves...How so? More and wider roads, catalytic converters, private infrastructure expansion, population geographic migration, etc.

Regarding property rights being a central value...yes they are, but not for the myopic reasons you believe. Try the objectivist philosophy for real and rational explanations. In particular, I refer you to Ayn Rand's book "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal"

Property rights are a central value, but not in the way you think either.
Referring to Rand is valuable only in the context of using her books to light the fireplace.

[humanmachinery]

In your view then, Von Mises and Von Hayek would find slavery acceptable? Not looking to start a fight, just asking.

Interesting you should ask that question.

Most fans of Hayek and Mises' "Austrian" school of economics have an unhealthy fixation with the Confederate States of America, and a worship of the stars and bars. Of course, they also claim the American Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, and that it was all about a tyrannical federal government attempting to usurp states rights.

As I understood it, Von Mises and Von Hayek argued that slavery violated the principle of ownership, because the body was the property of self. They conveniently avoided discussing whether ownership of the body entitled the self to ownership of all its works.

more here:

http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...strian-an.html
http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/virus.html

[humanmachinery]

All of the negatives of a car dependent culture, in an open market system, correct themselves...How so? More and wider roads, catalytic converters, private infrastructure expansion, population geographic migration, etc.

And thus the myth of the "rational market" lives on.

Even with wider roads, private contractors, and improved pollution management you still have massive amounts of cost overruns, waste, and travel bottlenecks. The old cars and used fluids pile up in the dumps, the construction crews have to be paid by someone [[whether public or private), and the sprawl of suburbia cannot expand indefinitely. There is a point where the resources of a region are stretched beyond their breaking point, and the consequences grow dire.

And wider roads do not necessarily alleviate traffic congestion. Traffic engineers have been fighting a losing battle with highway capacity for decades. Induced demand means any increased capacity draws more traffic into the system, filling that capacity, and starting the cycle all over again. Even during the period where commutes are accelerated, the travel time is typically shaved by 25% at most, to a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. This does not strike me as particularly efficient.

Any metropolitan system of roads collects vehicles from several points of origin, and then funnels them to a smaller number of destination points. These vehicles then have to be parked somewhere while their occupants are working or shopping.

Increasing the speed or width of the main arteries does not solve these issues. Indeed, this increases traffic volumes at the choke points by compressing arrival times.

One thing is clear though.

You can't funnel X persons spread over Y area through Z conduit if the aggregate of X and Y exceeds the ability of Z to efficiently handle the load in an area that is more confined than Y. All conduits face this problem.

The capacity of the conduit must be matched by the off-loading points used to exit the conduit [[plus car storage -- i.e. parking). Parking and off-loading represent the true upper limits of the system, not the theoretical capacity of the conduit.

The only permanent solution to this problem is to bring the origin points and destination points as close together as possible. This means that people would live, work, shop and play in roughly the same area.

There's a name for this: a walkable city.

Regarding property rights being a central value...yes they are, but not for the myopic reasons you believe. Try the objectivist philosophy for real and rational explanations. In particular, I refer you to Ayn Rand's book "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal"

I really don't care to plumb through Rand's work again. I had my fill of it many years ago, but it's really sad how she is considered intellectually superior to John Maynard Keynes. How? I am quite positive she had very little understanding of macroeconomics. She was a hack philosopher; even her own field in academia regarded her as intellectually inadequate, never mind the field of economics.

Rand grabbed snippets of her ideas from the great minds of the Enlightenment, and ran them into the ground using one-dimensional "characters" who bore little resemblance to human beings.

In her utopia, industrialists are always honest and always pay above-market wages to attract the best and the brightest. All her villains are willfully parasitic and misanthropic.

Only Rand would think a six-page speech spoken from a witness stand [[when Howard Roarke blew up Cortlandt Estates because they changed his design) is how literature is made.

Recall the symbol of epistemological purity traced in the air by the finger of John Galt as he returns Hank Reardon's income tax to him in gold....

It was a dollar sign.

Rand was third-rate hack of a philosopher who could not even see how value might transcend monetary exchange.

She viewed all collective and aggregate endeavor as suspect, failing to note that military defense [[which she deemed the main purpose of the state), academia [[which she viewed with suspicion), and indeed corporate capitalism [[which she side-stepped in favour of some atavistic entrepreneurial vision of enterprise) and democracy itself [[which she plainly distrusted) involve collective and aggregate endeavor.

These hackneyed writings were laborious, but made her a convenient tool for the Austrian and Chicago schools, because they helped peddle a flawed ideology. Despite their marathon lengths and paper thin plots, her novels proved more accessible to the lay person than Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. That is why they live on.

[ccbatson]

A third rate hack you say? Enduring appeal with ongoing sales of her work for over fifty years....not bad at all for a hack.

Even more topical is the fact that the logical consequences of socialist philosophies and mixed socialist economies is tragically coming to pass in front of our eyes. Again, not bad for a hack philosophy.

By contrast, Statism, Collectivism, Socialism, as philosophies always taking the course of progressive failure doesn't speak well for the philosophy to which you ascribe, now does it?

[Stosh]

A third rate hack you say? Enduring appeal with ongoing sales of her work for over fifty years....not bad at all for a hack.

Even more topical is the fact that the logical consequences of socialist philosophies and mixed socialist economies is tragically coming to pass in front of our eyes. Again, not bad for a hack philosophy.

By contrast, Statism, Collectivism, Socialism, as philosophies always taking the course of progressive failure doesn't speak well for the philosophy to which you ascribe, now does it?

I'd say describing her as a third rate hack is being generous.

Looking at her proponents, the majority of them are misanthropes of the highest order.