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

[Seth]

What aspects of property ownership are "primitive?" Can I have your car and house? Or, are you asserting some "primitive notion?"

They are very primitive, aimed at solving disputes over ownership.

Evasion. You claim that property rights are "primitive" when in fact they are quite sophisticated and are the basis of civilization. Property law is what keeps us from simply bashing the next guy in the head with a rock and taking his food.

What's primitive is the thinking of those who don't believe in respect for property rights. That's almost always a manifestation of jealousy and greed, which are indeed primitive emotions.

There's no such thing as an inalienable right to possession (if there were the merkins would be a long way down the list of people entitled to the US of A, behind the French, even).

There is in civilized societies. But don't confuse "unalienable" with "unregulable."

I used shoes as a more trivial example than a car or house but in any trivial example it would be a remarkable and serendipitous happening if the rights and mechanisms established to decide the ownership of a shoe box, just also happened to allow us to manage our culture and heritage effectively. Especially as the rules for shoe boxes weren't designed or intended to manage human history.

How does one "manage" history, pray tell. Just because you venerate some old object does not make it valuable. I've got an old pair of shitty underpants I'll be happy to mail you to prove that point.

Of course the rules for shoe box equality don't effectively manage human history and there is no reason to use them in disputes over heritage, it's a non-sequitur.

Again, your veneration of ancient objects is not a rational basis for imposing confiscatory rules on the owners of ancient objects. Unless YOU own the object, and have preserved it for a long time so that it can become a venerable object, it's none of your business what happens to it. To believe otherwise is to give others the power to control NEW objects in perpetuity so that they may become old, venerable objects, which is of course asinine.

Our commitment to shoe box equality has zero impact on our commitment and demands for human history.

What "demands" are those, and upon what rational basis do you expect others to comply with those demands?

If we say we're taking that $100 million artwork off you for posterity, your claim that we said a shoe box was yours to do as you wish with, is perfectly valid, if a little quaint and unconnected.

Over here, we like to call that "theft," and we put those who do such things in jail. The hypocrisy of someone, particularly government, ignoring an artwork from the moment it was created for a hundred or a thousand years and then suddenly deciding that it's a "heritage object" now worthy of veneration when it has done NOTHING To preserve or protect that object, something which the various owners down the centuries HAVE done is enormous, and it's simply a Communist collectivist mindset that believes that the individual is the servant of the collective, and that no one is entitled to own anything, not even themselves, and that all or anything may be taken from anyone by the collective to meet its needs or desires without any compunction or respect.

Your post demonstrates the quintessential divide between the thinking of the evil, selfish, delusional collectivist, who will steal from whomever they can, claiming that their right to do so is absolute because they are "equal" to every other person and must be allowed to "equalize" wealth by force, and rational human beings who acknowledge that individuals do indeed have unalienable rights and the right to ownership of property is high on that list, because that belief is what makes civilization possible and keeps us from killing one another.

[Coito ergo sum]

What aspects of property ownership are "primitive?" Can I have your car and house? Or, are you asserting some "primitive notion?"

They are very primitive, aimed at solving disputes over ownership.

Without property rights, there is no ownership. Ownership is a property right.

There's no such thing as an inalienable right to possession (if there were the merkins would be a long way down the list of people entitled to the US of A, behind the French, even).

Nobody said there was one.

I used shoes as a more trivial example than a car or house but in any trivial example it would be a remarkable and serendipitous happening if the rights and mechanisms established to decide the ownership of a shoe box, just also happened to allow us to manage our culture and heritage effectively. Especially as the rules for shoe boxes weren't designed or intended to manage human history.

Human history doesn't need managing. And, human history isn't property. A painting is a thing.

Of course the rules for shoe box equality don't effectively manage human history and there is no reason to use them in disputes over heritage, it's a non-sequitur.

Taking away someone's painting because it's old and a group of people get together and vote that they want it isn't any more enlightened, and isn't any more capable of "managing human history" than traditional notions of property.

Our commitment to shoe box equality has zero impact on our commitment and demands for human history.

So? What does that have to do with the assertion that property rights are "primitive?" Can I have your car yet, or are you holding on to some primitive property right? On what basis do you claim ownership?

If we say we're taking that $100 million artwork off you for posterity, your claim that we said a shoe box was yours to do as you wish with, is perfectly valid, if a little quaint and unconnected.

The value of a piece of artwork has little bearing on its historical value or contribution to human history, or its value to posterity. It's only worth $100,000,000 because there is a willing buyer at that price. No painting is inherently worth anything at all. Without the primitive property rights you're hand-waving away as quaint and unconnected, the painting isn't worth $100 million.

Arguably, private property rights are among the best methods of preserving items for posterity. Nobody takes better care of their property than its owner. Once it doesn't have an owner distinct from the taxpayer or the voter, then nobody gives as much of a shit about it. If someone steals the The Thinker from out in front of the Detroit Institute of Arts, I wouldn't be nearly as concerned as I would be if they stole my $10,000 painting on my wall (if I had one).

[JimC]

CES wrote:

That's what it means - the majority can't tell a minority of ONE that he can't hold an opinion, and no consensus, no majority, anywhere, anyplace, anytime, can take that away. If you disagree with that , you can pick a number, get in line and kiss his, and my, ass.

Very few would disagree with the right of an indivividual to hold (and state) opinions, be they unpopular or not.

However, the crux of the debate here about majority rule is decisions which affect how a community runs, arrived at by whatever political process.

Seraph's point was about abiding by a majority decsion in this arena (such as the proposed constitutional change in Oz), no matter your own personal view on the matter. One thing about such majority decisions - they are highly unlikely to involve radical changes to society, such as abolition of property rights (to give an example that would enrage Seth), or abolition of unions (which would annoy many of us pinko degenerates). Majority decisions typically are cautious, which is probably a good thing...

[Seth]

CES wrote:

That's what it means - the majority can't tell a minority of ONE that he can't hold an opinion, and no consensus, no majority, anywhere, anyplace, anytime, can take that away. If you disagree with that , you can pick a number, get in line and kiss his, and my, ass.

Very few would disagree with the right of an indivividual to hold (and state) opinions, be they unpopular or not.

However, the crux of the debate here about majority rule is decisions which affect how a community runs, arrived at by whatever political process.

No, the crux of the debate here is whether or not there is respect for private property rights in the community. Whether or not someone choose to "hoard" (which was the OP) a work of art by not allowing the public access to it is not a matter of "how a community runs" in any rational sense other than as a dividing line between collectivism and individualism.

Seraph's point was about abiding by a majority decsion in this arena (such as the proposed constitutional change in Oz), no matter your own personal view on the matter. One thing about such majority decisions - they are highly unlikely to involve radical changes to society, such as abolition of property rights (to give an example that would enrage Seth), or abolition of unions (which would annoy many of us pinko degenerates). Majority decisions typically are cautious, which is probably a good thing...

And yet a law that would presume to dictate to the owner of a "historic" object may do with or to that object is precisely the sort of "radical change" that moves society far down the slippery slope to collectivist tyranny of the majority.

The classic example is the "historic overlay district" in zoning law that applies to any house of a certain age that prohibits the owner from doing quite literally ANYTHING to change the appearance of the house without the permission of the government, even if that change might be invisible to the public.

A case in point is a "historic" home in Boulder, Colorado. The owner sought to replace the antique, single-pane, non-safety-glass, energy inefficient, lead-paint covered windows in his home with new, custom-made, double-pane, energy-efficient, safety-glass, lead-free windows that were IDENTICAL in appearance to the old windows. The Historic Preservation Board prohibited him from making this change because it deemed it more important that the public "be assured that it is viewing original materials in historic districts." (that's a direct quote)

In other words, it was more important to the historic preservation fascists that people walking by or driving by be "assured" that what they were looking at is ACTUALLY more than 50 years old than it is for the owner's children to be safe from lead-paint poisoning and the potential for physical injury should a window be broken, not to mention the issue of energy efficiency and conservation.

Now, no matter how one might view the board's decision, it was fuckwitted, arrogant, intrusive, stupid and evil and an abusive exercise of the tyranny of the majority, who had voted for such zoning laws.

Fortunately, the owner had removed the windows before anyone got wind of it, and had left them piled in the alley. When the stop-work order was issued, and he was forbidden to install the new windows and ordered to reinstall the old ones, the story came to the attention of my friend and colleague Wayne Laugesen, who was the Editor at the Boulder Weekly at the time. He, along with many others, was outraged at this abuse of power, so he asked the owner if he wanted the old windows, and the owner said he didn't, so Wayne loaded them up in my pickup truck, took them to the dump, and had a front-loader driver drive back and forth over them and completely destroy them so they could not be reinstalled or reused.

Then he wrote a story in the paper about the situation, and admitted to taking the windows and destroying them. He was both lauded (by intelligent people) and excoriated (by preservation fascists and idiots) and the City of Boulder tried very hard to find a way to prosecute him, or somebody, for the "crime." But there was no law prohibiting someone who was not the owner of the "historic" windows from disposing of them, and they couldn't do a damned thing about it.

The great news is that the homeowner was finally allowed to put his new windows in, and the preservation fascists got to eat shit.

The moral of this story is that it's better to induce people to voluntarily cooperate in preserving historic objects by being reasonable and finding ways to accommodate their rights and legitimate needs than it is to simply wield laws like a blunt instrument without any reason or compassion, because the alternative just gets the coveted object destroyed in the end.

[JimC]

In certain circumstaces, various laws or ordinances concerning historical overlay or heritage value may be applied in a way which is patently absurd. The example you gave of the windows certainly looks like that, at least at first glance. In such circumstances, people should argue the case for modifying the laws to be less intrusive, and achieve a change by democratic means. If it drags, protest, ridicule the council, whatever.

But the existence of such anomalies does not imply that all regulations concerning heritage buildings are unecessary, or that the principle of majority rule is an evil tool of interfering governments...

Property rights are important, but they are not always and in all circumstances sacrosant. The view that they always trump any other consideration is an extremist one.

[Seth]

In certain circumstaces, various laws or ordinances concerning historical overlay or heritage value may be applied in a way which is patently absurd. The example you gave of the windows certainly looks like that, at least at first glance. In such circumstances, people should argue the case for modifying the laws to be less intrusive, and achieve a change by democratic means. If it drags, protest, ridicule the council, whatever.

But the existence of such anomalies does not imply that all regulations concerning heritage buildings are unecessary, or that the principle of majority rule is an evil tool of interfering governments...

Property rights are important, but they are not always and in all circumstances sacrosant. The view that they always trump any other consideration is an extremist one.

The argument is not that property rights are sacrosanct in all circumstances, that's a red herring argument, as is the other argument you make that "they always trump any other consideration" being an extremist one.

The argument is by what right does "majority rule" presume to dictate to a property owner what he may or may not do with his own property insofar as it involves historical interest in that property?

We agree that regulations that prevent the export of harm to others are reasonable. Zoning laws that segregate residential uses from industrial uses were one of the first types (after racist and anti-religious zoning laws) of zoning laws enacted, and their purpose, which has long been held to be legitimate, was to segregate the USES to which property could be put in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

The problem with historic preservation laws is that they do not protect the health, safety or welfare of anyone. Indeed, it can be argued that preserving firetrap 1800's homes or "historic" row-houses rather than having them redeveloped as modern, energy efficient and safe buildings HARMS public (or private) safety, as in the case of the dangerous windows I mentioned.

Historic preservation ordinances are the quintessential example of the public "taking" property rights from property owners not to protect the community or prevent some actual harm that might be caused by a proposed use by the owner, but simply as a matter of the public deciding that the values that they place on the property involved are more important than the values that the owner places on the property. By using the tyranny of the majority to vote in regulations that always affect ONLY the people who have NOT exercised their right to redevelop their property with modern structures, they create an entire class of people who are denied their rights only because the public has decided that the structure or neighborhood has "historical value" and that the "examples of historic architecture" that the public values are more important than the right of the landowner to raze the building and build a house, or a car park, or an office building that suits THEIR desires and needs.

The hypocrisy and evil of INVOLUNTARY historic designation (we're not talking here about voluntary designations, which some communities properly use) is that if the historical fascists had been around in 1900, Frank Lloyd Wright would have committed suicide after trying to build his "modern" architectural masterpieces, having been frustrated by a bunch of know-it-all nosy assholes who have decided that they know more about architecture than architects and who presume to dictate taste to everyone through regulatory excess.

Had the trend then been what it is today, Fallingwater and the Robie house and all of the other Wright masterpieces, and the entirely school of architecture that followed him and shows its influences even today, would never have occurred, because everything would have been frozen in the Victorian era merely because some visionless people decided that "history" had to be preserved at all costs.

Remember that today's modern architecture is tomorrow's historical masterpiece.

And this doesn't even address the REAL problem with design restrictions and historic preservation laws, which is that, at least in the US, they completely violate the First Amendment rights of the property owners to freedom of expression through architecture.

A man's house is often the most expensive and most fundamental exercise of free speech and expression that anyone ever engages in. The design of a person's house can be intensely individual and artistic, and it's been known for thousands of years that architecture is art, and art is expression, and the First Amendment protects the individual's right to freely express themselves through architecture.

[JimC]

When historical overlays are first introduced in a given precinct, it may well be initially unfair to existing owners that want to demolish or extensively alter, and perhaps compensation is reasonable (although often, at least in Oz, internal renovation to modern standards is often allowed (taking care of the safety aspects you mentioned), as long as the streetscape itself is relatively unchanged)

However, in most areas by now, the heritage controls have been in place for a long time. Existing owners are those who are comfortable with possessing something with a rich history, and accept the limitations this means. In fact, they have often bought such properties for their period quality. The Sydney building that started this whole debate off is now making a small fortune for its owners, since many people are attracted to its historical ambience, which swells the coffers of the boutique shops within. Once heritage protection has been applied for a considerable period, is well known and understood, no one suffers further. Developers or prospective home-owners who wish to purchase do so fully understanding the limitations they must work within.

Also, such protections gain considerably more public support if they are applied selectively and sensibly. They should aim to preserve significant examples of a particular period, and not seek to preserve third-rate examples, or buildings whose structure has deteriorated beyond a certain point. In some cases, money from governments and/or historical society's volunteers may help to buy, maintain or preserve particularly outstanding examples of period architecture. If historical overlays are applied in a clumsy or over-bearing fashion which alienates too many people, then they will no longer enjoy the majority public support they do now.

[MrJonno]

A man's house is often the most expensive and most fundamental exercise of free speech and expression that anyone ever engages in

Really most houses are commodities and look pretty much like every other one?, I know my few square metres looks exactly the same as 1000's of other people's few square metres

[Seth]

A man's house is often the most expensive and most fundamental exercise of free speech and expression that anyone ever engages in

Really most houses are commodities and look pretty much like every other one?, I know my few square metres looks exactly the same as 1000's of other people's few square metres

But that's YOUR choice. If you wish, you may modify what belongs to you to suit your needs and aesthetic desires. The fact that you don't because it doesn't belong to you (you rent) or because you cannot afford to, or are satisfied with the design is not relevant. It's still an artistic expression. Even blocks of government-subsidized apartments are the objects of architectural design and expression.

People pay a lot of attention when buying a house to the design and landscaping, if they are buying an existing house, and "ugly" houses sell for less than "beautiful" houses do. This again is a market-based acknowledgment of the artistic nature of architecture. So, my point remains.

[Seth]

When historical overlays are first introduced in a given precinct, it may well be initially unfair to existing owners that want to demolish or extensively alter, and perhaps compensation is reasonable (although often, at least in Oz, internal renovation to modern standards is often allowed (taking care of the safety aspects you mentioned), as long as the streetscape itself is relatively unchanged)

However, in most areas by now, the heritage controls have been in place for a long time. Existing owners are those who are comfortable with possessing something with a rich history, and accept the limitations this means. In fact, they have often bought such properties for their period quality. The Sydney building that started this whole debate off is now making a small fortune for its owners, since many people are attracted to its historical ambience, which swells the coffers of the boutique shops within. Once heritage protection has been applied for a considerable period, is well known and understood, no one suffers further. Developers or prospective home-owners who wish to purchase do so fully understanding the limitations they must work within.

That's not relevant. You are merely attempting to excuse the tyrannical nature of historic preservation regulations by arguing that we're stuck with them. I am arguing that the fundamental premise of historical preservation regulations is flawed, and is a violation of the very concept of private property ownership that underpins civilization. There is NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE for such regulations under social constructs of limited government and respect for private property. The fact that a particular "historic" structure under private ownership exists or ceases to exist in no way negatively affects the health, safety or welfare of the people, it is a PURELY AESTHETIC matter that is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE on the part of those who administer such regulations at the behest of the public who authorize the laws. It is not a legitimate function of government to dictate aesthetics when it comes to private property.

Yes, governments factually DO regulate private aesthetics, but they do so without any moral or ethical right, and such regulations are tyrannical exercises of pure, unadulterated force every bit as heinous and reprehensible as forcing women to wear big black bags or segregating races.

Also, such protections gain considerably more public support if they are applied selectively and sensibly. They should aim to preserve significant examples of a particular period, and not seek to preserve third-rate examples, or buildings whose structure has deteriorated beyond a certain point. In some cases, money from governments and/or historical society's volunteers may help to buy, maintain or preserve particularly outstanding examples of period architecture. If historical overlays are applied in a clumsy or over-bearing fashion which alienates too many people, then they will no longer enjoy the majority public support they do now.

Selective application is actually morally and ethically MORE bankrupt than uniform application. At least with uniform application, EVERYONE who owns a house that is older than the specified age is going to be equally terrorized by the preservation fascists. A regulation that allows yet another subjective judgment that one example of the period is to be regulated while another is not is even worse, and represents a violation of the concept of equal justice before the law. Such laws are evil because they are almost always enforced selectively against those who do not have the money or power to persuade the bureaucrats not to apply the regulations to them.

Thus, the wealthy and privileged, who can bribe or threaten the Historic Preservation Board members not to restrict their ability to modify or demolish a home, are not subject to the same law that the poor person living in the creaky, drafty, mouse-infested, lead-paint covered, faultily wired, inadequately plumbed, rotting example of some particular historical interest to somebody else not the owner is. Sure, it satisfies the greed and cupidity of the public, who are happy to regulate the poor person who cannot fight them through the tyranny of the majority, but to argue that just because the public supports its own tyranny that it's just and reasonable is nonsense.

What you describe is precisely why such regulations are offensive to the very concept of individual liberty and the right to own, use and enjoy private property. If the public values such examples of history, then the public should BUY THEM for the fair market value, thus at least releasing the owner from the perpetual straightjacket and costs of maintaining a museum for the benefit of the public a his own personal expense.

[JimC]

To the above post, basically meh...

A majority of Australians are happy with laws that presrve heritage buildings. From what I gather, at least in some areas, so are a majority of Americans.

You can pontificate about the "flaws in its fundamental premise", and fume impotently about it all you like...

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we'll enjoy our historical streetscapes...

[Seth]

To the above post, basically meh...

A majority of Australians are happy with laws that presrve heritage buildings. From what I gather, at least in some areas, so are a majority of Americans.

The majority is always happy with the laws it uses to oppress the minority, so that's merely a fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

You can pontificate about the "flaws in its fundamental premise", and fume impotently about it all you like...

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we'll enjoy our historical streetscapes...

And that's another characteristic of the fascistic majority tyranny, those in power or whose interests are served by the tyrannical acts simply dismiss the complaints of those who are oppressed by their actions.

[Hermit]

The temperature in my scroll-wheel is approaching the danger zone.

Oh, and the use of all-caps does nothing to add sense to lunatic ravings.

[JimC]

To the above post, basically meh...

A majority of Australians are happy with laws that presrve heritage buildings. From what I gather, at least in some areas, so are a majority of Americans.

The majority is always happy with the laws it uses to oppress the minority, so that's merely a fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

You can pontificate about the "flaws in its fundamental premise", and fume impotently about it all you like...

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we'll enjoy our historical streetscapes...

And that's another characteristic of the fascistic majority tyranny, those in power or whose interests are served by the tyrannical acts simply dismiss the complaints of those who are oppressed by their actions.

Poor Seth, a member of a poor, downtrodden minority, a misunderstood political genius sadly oppressed by so much of the mainstream world, whose inhabitants are either evil commies, tyrannical fascists or sheeple...

It's hard to decide whether your world view or sandinista's marxist never-never land is the most delusional...


This post is currently under discussion by the staff.
After consideration the staff have decided that the post does not contain a personal attack.

[MrJonno]

The majority is always happy with the laws it uses to oppress the minority, so that's merely a fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

There are only two governments those where the majority 'oppress' the minority and those where the minority 'oppress' the majority. Its generaly pretty clear which is the most common ie dictatorship ruling over the majority. If the only way to make people like Seth never oppress the majority ie me is to make sure that they feel 'oppressed' then so bet it. I would gladly pay 90% tax to make sure people like Seth never have any real power in this world

This post is currently under discussion by the staff.
After consideration the staff have decided that the post does not contain a personal attack.