From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Sun Jun 16 2002 - 19:19:19 MDT
Mike Lorrey [mailto:mlorrey@datamann.com] wrote:
Here in northern New England we sure do have it good, but we also have
relatively high standards of living and high costs of living.
### Ah, yes, we the working people of the US should support this high living
standard to the tune of 180x10e9 dollars of our money taken away at
gunpoint.
------
Family farms also form an integral part of local culture. How would
'moving to the country' have any actual meaning to urban dwellers if the
country didn't have farms, fields, and farm animals to complete the
scenery?
### You are using esthetic considerations to justify coercive actions of the
state - a crass assault on moral symmetry and very non-libertarian, too.
-------
If a family farm goes under, the first thing that happens is the land
gets bought by a bank, subdivided, and turned into tract housing to sell
to idiots who think they are 'getting away from it all'. It isn't 'the
country' anymore if you've paved it over. The only alternative
### No, there is a lot of other alternatives - like buying conservation
easements from farmers and selling land with guarantees of whatever
aesthetic value the buyers desire (Swiss-bucolic, high-tech natural, Tuscany
style, etc.) to be maintained by voluntarily entered (at time of purchase)
covenants, subject to contract law rather than the whims of the local
fasc..er, politicos.
------
In this sort of environment, should local communities be forcibly
prevented by national or international governments from protecting their
local markets, local culture, and local traditions from the
agribusinesses in other countries?
### Local communities should not forcibly take away my money, period.
-------
A prominent GOP strategist made an interesting comment about his
libertarian views in a talk on C-SPAN: "I'm an anarchist
internationally, a libertarian at the national level, a republican at
the state level, and an absolute fascist at the local level."
### QED. May Ifni save us from the little tyrants, we'll deal with big ones
alone.
-------
Individuals do have the right to engage in community pacts to protect
their local area, whether it is police or fire districts, or zoning
regulations, or deed covenants, these are no different from saying that
all milk in the community must be sold at a price so that local dairy
farmers can keep their pretty farms, or telling all homeowners in a
neighborhood what limited selection of colors they can paint their
homes, or businesses how large they can make their signs. While
seemingly fascist in nature, they aren't specifically because there is
no attempt to prevent residents from voting on such regulations with
their feet.
### But there is a huge difference, like heaven and hell, between the use of
funds obtained by a brutal exercise of political power on one side, and the
use of voluntary contractual agreements on the other. If I buy a house with
a big book of local covenants (which may not be changed against my will),
it's my free decision and more likely than not I'll be happy with it (or
else I wouldn't buy the house in the first place). A local politician rudely
changing the rules of the game to serve whatever coalition of special
interests financed his election is a different beast altogether. You say I
should vote with my feet - just like the Jews, they were initially
encouraged to vote with their feet, too. No thanks.
-------
I do agree, though, that at least for medium to large nations like the
US which has many different subcultures and regions, letting such laws
be passed at the national level is entirely inappropriate.
### Good.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:50 MST