Is it wrong for great art works to be hoarded by the rich?

[Seth]

And therein lies the inequity of Australian law and the cupidity and selfish nosiness of the Australian people, who refuse to acknowledge the rights of property owners do use and enjoy their property without the undue interference of the government. It's one thing to require a demolition permit, which serves to ensure that the demolition will be done properly and safely and that the property will not become a public nuisance, but it's entirely another thing to be subjected to the discretionary review of the government before deciding to demolish and replace something YOU OWN with something new.

The Duke of Marlborough owns Blenheim Palace in England. It is the only privately owned World Heritage Site and one of the glories of English architectural history:



Just to clarify your position, if the Duke woke up tomorrow morning and decided that he wanted to demolish the palace and build a green and purple ice rink in its place, you would have no problem with that?

None whatsoever. The British government has had plenty of opportunity to exercise eminent domain and place it in the public trust by seizing it and paying just compensation. If it does not care to spend the money, why should the Duke care what the government thinks. It's his, not yours, not Britain's, and certainly not the world's.

If you don't like the potential threat of demolition, then for fuck's sake just BUY IT right now.

[Seth]

Seth, I think you have missed 2 important points about the Sydney example.

1. The company that bought the building was fully aware of its heritage listing, which means that they would have to apply for a special permit to knock it down, a permit which was unlikely in the political climate of the day. In a different circumstance, where a developer purchased a building, intending to replace it, and a government retrospectively legislated to forbid this, I would agree that this would be unfair; in that case, there would be legal redress and compensation.

The "heritage listing" IS the problem. Such laws strip property rights from private property owners based on what the government, and the public value in a particular situation, and the owner has done nothing to make that listing a necessity. That is the essence of an improper taking. If the public values "heritage" sites, then the public ought to open its purse and buy the property so it can be preserved, rather than using a regulatory taking to accomplish its purpose of acquiring the value of the property for nothing.

2. The laws that are the baseis for heritage listing were enacted a long time ago by a democratically elected government. Governments of various persuasions have come and gone, but the laws remain; they have strong public support. Developers need to do their homework, and only step in where it is clear they will be able to proceed. Also, there are many older buildings, third-rate examples of their architectural style, which are quite sensibly not listed, so there is still plenty of opportunity for new developments.

That's what is called the "tyranny of the majority," or, as it's otherwise stated, it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

The essence of private property rights is that the individual who owns the property has the right to decide on the use and disposition of the property, not the public. So long as what the owner chooses to do does not export actual harm to others, like by exporting pollutants or causing damage to a neighboring property, the owner should have plenary power to do as he pleases and build, or demolish whatever it is that he cares to build or demolish, not subject to the whims and caprices of the public and its aesthetic sensibilities and outrageous demands for control of what does not belong to them.

[Seth]

Had I not sold my ranch, I was fully intending to bulldoze my house just prior to it turning 50 years old, specifically to prevent it from being subject to historic preservation ordinances.

Fuckin hell, 50 years is historic?
Funny they don't attach the same importance to preserving 50 year old people.
.

Indeed. It used to be 100 years, but then the "bungalow" craze of the 30's, which didn't qualify as "historic" became the new metric by which redevelopment of urban parcels was measured, and people began objecting to "McMansions" being build next to their 900 square foot bungalow, so the authorities changed the limit in order to prevent redevelopment of downtown parcels, limiting them to "bungalow style" houses "compatible with the neighborhood" and applying historic preservation overlay districts to large swathes of Boulder precisely to prevent any new replacement houses from being built.

The idea that the house that I HELPED TO BUILD as a child (I drove a lot of nails even though I was quite small at the time) would become a "historic structure" in my lifetime is utterly asinine.

[JimC]

Seth, I think you have missed 2 important points about the Sydney example.

1. The company that bought the building was fully aware of its heritage listing, which means that they would have to apply for a special permit to knock it down, a permit which was unlikely in the political climate of the day. In a different circumstance, where a developer purchased a building, intending to replace it, and a government retrospectively legislated to forbid this, I would agree that this would be unfair; in that case, there would be legal redress and compensation.

The "heritage listing" IS the problem. Such laws strip property rights from private property owners based on what the government, and the public value in a particular situation, and the owner has done nothing to make that listing a necessity. That is the essence of an improper taking. If the public values "heritage" sites, then the public ought to open its purse and buy the property so it can be preserved, rather than using a regulatory taking to accomplish its purpose of acquiring the value of the property for nothing.

2. The laws that are the baseis for heritage listing were enacted a long time ago by a democratically elected government. Governments of various persuasions have come and gone, but the laws remain; they have strong public support. Developers need to do their homework, and only step in where it is clear they will be able to proceed. Also, there are many older buildings, third-rate examples of their architectural style, which are quite sensibly not listed, so there is still plenty of opportunity for new developments.

That's what is called the "tyranny of the majority," or, as it's otherwise stated, it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

The essence of private property rights is that the individual who owns the property has the right to decide on the use and disposition of the property, not the public. So long as what the owner chooses to do does not export actual harm to others, like by exporting pollutants or causing damage to a neighboring property, the owner should have plenary power to do as he pleases and build, or demolish whatever it is that he cares to build or demolish, not subject to the whims and caprices of the public and its aesthetic sensibilities and outrageous demands for control of what does not belong to them.

That's your view only, not some over-arching philosophical truth. And the sheer elitism of the "tyranny of the majority" line is, in essence, a deeply fascist mentality, or at least one held by deluded minorities with a contempt for democracy.

It would be a view held by very few in Australia, with the exception of certain predatory developers.

So, leave us to our well preserved cityscape of heritage buildings, and enjoy fuming about the evils of your own government; we are quite capable of sorting out our own political priorities...

[Pappa]

It's funny how Seth talks of the tyranny of the majority in one thread when he thinks democracy has encroached on private property rights, yet in another thread he thinks it would be fine if a theocracy was established democratically.

[Seth]

It's funny how Seth talks of the tyranny of the majority in one thread when he thinks democracy has encroached on private property rights, yet in another thread he thinks it would be fine if a theocracy was established democratically.

It's not funny, it's nuanced. Nor did I say it would be "fine" if a theocracy was established democratically, I said that it is the ultimate right of any people to determine what form of government best provides for their needs and happiness. I'm hardly the first to say that. Indeed, it's in the Declaration of Independence.

It's a knotty problem indeed for a large group of disparate individuals to form a society that is satisfactory to all. Fortunately, here in America, we've come as close to it as any group in history by being both respectful of the rights of the individual and tolerant of diverse opinion and belief.

[Seth]

Seth, I think you have missed 2 important points about the Sydney example.

1. The company that bought the building was fully aware of its heritage listing, which means that they would have to apply for a special permit to knock it down, a permit which was unlikely in the political climate of the day. In a different circumstance, where a developer purchased a building, intending to replace it, and a government retrospectively legislated to forbid this, I would agree that this would be unfair; in that case, there would be legal redress and compensation.

The "heritage listing" IS the problem. Such laws strip property rights from private property owners based on what the government, and the public value in a particular situation, and the owner has done nothing to make that listing a necessity. That is the essence of an improper taking. If the public values "heritage" sites, then the public ought to open its purse and buy the property so it can be preserved, rather than using a regulatory taking to accomplish its purpose of acquiring the value of the property for nothing.

2. The laws that are the baseis for heritage listing were enacted a long time ago by a democratically elected government. Governments of various persuasions have come and gone, but the laws remain; they have strong public support. Developers need to do their homework, and only step in where it is clear they will be able to proceed. Also, there are many older buildings, third-rate examples of their architectural style, which are quite sensibly not listed, so there is still plenty of opportunity for new developments.

That's what is called the "tyranny of the majority," or, as it's otherwise stated, it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

The essence of private property rights is that the individual who owns the property has the right to decide on the use and disposition of the property, not the public. So long as what the owner chooses to do does not export actual harm to others, like by exporting pollutants or causing damage to a neighboring property, the owner should have plenary power to do as he pleases and build, or demolish whatever it is that he cares to build or demolish, not subject to the whims and caprices of the public and its aesthetic sensibilities and outrageous demands for control of what does not belong to them.

That's your view only, not some over-arching philosophical truth. And the sheer elitism of the "tyranny of the majority" line is, in essence, a deeply fascist mentality, or at least one held by deluded minorities with a contempt for democracy.

Contempt for democracy is hardly axiomatically fascist. Respect for individual rights over the desires of the majority is fundamentally Libertarian and NOT fascist. The tyranny of the majority is a very real threat to the individual, as rightly recognized by our Founders, and it's to be avoided and carefully controlled. That's precisely why we believe in "unalienable rights" rather than rights as a function of the tyranny of the majority.

Nor is excoriating the tyranny of the majority "elitism." The notion that your right to peaceable use and enjoyment of your own property should be subject to the whims and caprices of your neighbors or your community is a quick path to despotism and tyranny. If you believe otherwise, then certainly you won't mind if I drop by and take your computer, your car, your clothes and everything else you own and use it for my pleasure and benefit without compensating you for taking it. After all, if you reject the tyranny of the majority as "elitist," then you must be a collectivist who doesn't believe in private property at all, and therefore you have no right to those goods you've worked hard to obtain and can be forced to give them to others for their use and pleasure.

It would be a view held by very few in Australia, with the exception of certain predatory developers.

So, leave us to our well preserved cityscape of heritage buildings, and enjoy fuming about the evils of your own government; we are quite capable of sorting out our own political priorities...

Evidently not. But since Australia is a nation of thieves and criminals to begin with (it was colonized as a prison colony), I suppose it's unsurprising that theft of individual property and a deeply-held disrespect for individual property rights would be a societal norm. You're hardly alone though, disrespect for individual rights is common place in collectivist, socialist societies where people feel entitled to take what doesn't belong to them by force.

[MrJonno]

Contempt for democracy is hardly axiomatically fascist. Respect for individual rights over the desires of the majority is fundamentally Libertarian and NOT fascist. The tyranny of the majority is a very real threat to the individual, as rightly recognized by our Founders, and it's to be avoided and carefully controlled. That's precisely why we believe in "unalienable rights" rather than rights as a function of the tyranny of the majority.

Contempt for democracy is fascist and its also contempt for individual rights as thats the only place they come from.
Also whats this about sticking a capital letter on founders, as if it makes 18th century savages any less of savages if you give them a capital letter

[Seth]

Contempt for democracy is hardly axiomatically fascist. Respect for individual rights over the desires of the majority is fundamentally Libertarian and NOT fascist. The tyranny of the majority is a very real threat to the individual, as rightly recognized by our Founders, and it's to be avoided and carefully controlled. That's precisely why we believe in "unalienable rights" rather than rights as a function of the tyranny of the majority.

Contempt for democracy is fascist and its also contempt for individual rights as thats the only place they come from.

Evidently you misunderstand both "fascist" and "democracy" in addition to misunderstanding "individual rights."

Also whats this about sticking a capital letter on founders, as if it makes 18th century savages any less of savages if you give them a capital letter

Even Marx and Stalin, two of the most evil and savage motherfuckers who ever lived still get a capital letter, as does "Communism." "Founders" is a reference to the Founding Fathers of the United States and it's an expression of respect and a proper title, whether you agree or not.

[MrJonno]

Even Marx and Stalin, two of the most evil and savage motherfuckers who ever lived still get a capital letter, as does "Communism." "Founders" is a reference to the Founding Fathers of the United States and it's an expression of respect and a proper title, whether you agree or not.

Don't notice any other founders of anything else getting capitalised, its toss pot ancestor worship

[Seth]

Even Marx and Stalin, two of the most evil and savage motherfuckers who ever lived still get a capital letter, as does "Communism." "Founders" is a reference to the Founding Fathers of the United States and it's an expression of respect and a proper title, whether you agree or not.

Don't notice any other founders of anything else getting capitalised, its toss pot ancestor worship

Oh, I don't know, how about "King" and "Queen?" Or "Duke" and "Duchess?"

It may be "ancestor worship" but so what? We're entitled to revere and honor anyone it pleases us to honor.

Brits are the ne plus ultra of toss-pot ancestor worship by your own metric.

[Gallstones]

I started this http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 32&t=29194 so some of us would stop derailing this topic.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, I think you have missed 2 important points about the Sydney example.

1. The company that bought the building was fully aware of its heritage listing, which means that they would have to apply for a special permit to knock it down, a permit which was unlikely in the political climate of the day. In a different circumstance, where a developer purchased a building, intending to replace it, and a government retrospectively legislated to forbid this, I would agree that this would be unfair; in that case, there would be legal redress and compensation.

The "heritage listing" IS the problem. Such laws strip property rights from private property owners based on what the government, and the public value in a particular situation, and the owner has done nothing to make that listing a necessity. That is the essence of an improper taking. If the public values "heritage" sites, then the public ought to open its purse and buy the property so it can be preserved, rather than using a regulatory taking to accomplish its purpose of acquiring the value of the property for nothing.

2. The laws that are the baseis for heritage listing were enacted a long time ago by a democratically elected government. Governments of various persuasions have come and gone, but the laws remain; they have strong public support. Developers need to do their homework, and only step in where it is clear they will be able to proceed. Also, there are many older buildings, third-rate examples of their architectural style, which are quite sensibly not listed, so there is still plenty of opportunity for new developments.

That's what is called the "tyranny of the majority," or, as it's otherwise stated, it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

The essence of private property rights is that the individual who owns the property has the right to decide on the use and disposition of the property, not the public. So long as what the owner chooses to do does not export actual harm to others, like by exporting pollutants or causing damage to a neighboring property, the owner should have plenary power to do as he pleases and build, or demolish whatever it is that he cares to build or demolish, not subject to the whims and caprices of the public and its aesthetic sensibilities and outrageous demands for control of what does not belong to them.

That's your view only, not some over-arching philosophical truth. And the sheer elitism of the "tyranny of the majority" line is, in essence, a deeply fascist mentality, or at least one held by deluded minorities with a contempt for democracy.

Lani Guinier....deluded fascist:

A prime example of "tyranny of the majority" is when the majority votes to deprive gays the right to marry, or blacks and whites the right to intermarry.

[Hermit]

A prime example of "tyranny of the majority" is when the majority votes to deprive gays the right to marry, or blacks and whites the right to intermarry.

Many such problems have been fixed via constitutional amendments. How do constitutional amendments come about? That's right: a majority vote. Damn that tyranny of the majority.

[Gallstones]

A prime example of "tyranny of the majority" is when the majority votes to deprive gays the right to marry, or blacks and whites the right to intermarry.

Many such problems have been fixed via constitutional amendments. How do constitutional amendments come about? That's right: a majority vote. Damn that tyranny of the majority.

The majority first has to prove it is 'the majority'.