Kicking this back to the top. Happy Independence Day! — GSS
This from my Arizona Republic real estate column (permanent link):
The “cap and trade” bill that passed in the House of Representatives last week contains within it the seeds of a national building code. It rarely rains in Phoenix and it rarely fails to rain in Portland, but both cities will build new structures according to the dictates of some Washington bureaucrat.
Drive along 19th Avenue in Phoenix and you’ll pass block after block of condemned houses. They were taken by the city for the planned light rail expansion, now delayed. The neighbors are left to fight off the kind of vermin vacant homes attract while they worry what that blight is doing to their home values.
In Glendale, the city government is doing everything it can to prevent the Tohono O’Odham tribe from developing its own sovereign land as a casino.
The essence of the freedom we celebrate on Independence Day is the free ownership of the land. The Hoplite Greeks fought and died to protect their own lands. The Roman Legionnaires fought and died because their farms were their own property. A Cincinnatus — or a George Washington — lays down his arms because being a dictator is nothing when you can instead be a freeholder in the land.
The essence of our freedom is the free ownership of the land, and yet everywhere we turn, private property is subjected to one law after another, and everything that is not forbidden is compulsory instead.
This is a grievous error. The men who become Brownshirts or Klansmen or Khmer Rouge — the men who make up murderous mobs — are men without land. It is the husbandry of the land — each man to his own parcel — that most makes husbands of us, that sweeps away our willingness to live as brigands or rapists or thugs.
By robbing the private ownership of the land of its meaning, the state is, by increments, robbing its citizens of their humanity. No one burns down his own home, nor his neighbor’s home. But when the time comes that we all seem to own our homes only by sufferance, none of us will have anything left to defend.
Further notice: I posted an audio tweet on this topic, as well.
Brad Coy says:
Thanks for the audio. It was a mindful history lesson to hear this morning – fascinating and proud material. Happy independence day, Greg.
July 4, 2009 — 12:49 pm
Robert Kerr says:
RE: “Private ownership of the land is the source not just of our freedom but of our civility and of our humanity itself.”
Private ownership … private ownership of land originally stolen from Native Americans. Yeah?
How do reconcile railing against “theft” so often, while your very livelihood depends on the fruits of a prior theft, a land theft on a massive scale, in the past?
Theft is Ok, as long as you benefit?
Help me understand your rationale…
July 4, 2009 — 5:06 pm
Greg Swann says:
> How do reconcile railing against “theft” so often, while your very livelihood depends on the fruits of a prior theft, a land theft on a massive scale, in the past?
The land I live on, and the real estate I sell, had been abandoned for centuries when the first Europeans came here.
I think this is a specious argument — when will you be moving out to restore the rights of those you have injured? — but you picked a very poor example in this case.
Happy Independence Day, Bob! Nice to see you’re having as good a time as usual.
July 4, 2009 — 6:32 pm
Joe says:
“…seeds of a national building code…”
I’m a licensed (inactive) building contractor in California and I wonder why my government would want my home here in Southeast Washington to meet the same earthquake standards imposed on builders in California.
…subjected to one law after another…
The enormous amount of legislation Americans endure to make a buck is another form of taxation on our lives. We tend to focus on the obvious tax increases, however the legislation a business owner, etc., that needs to be circumvented to make a buck is ridiculous.
July 5, 2009 — 7:28 am
Robert Kerr says:
I think this is a specious argument — when will you be moving out to restore the rights of those you have injured?
Not me, Greg, I’m not the one upset about taking by war/force, whether it’s from natives or the British Empire.
And Happy Independence Day to you, too.
July 5, 2009 — 8:13 am
Greg Swann says:
> Private ownership … private ownership of land originally stolen from Native Americans. Yeah?
For the benefit of inlookers, this is one of those idiotic arguments propounded by college professors. Without a theory of property, it sounds very deep. But as soon as you address it from a reasonable theory of property — of how property rights are created, violated and terminated — it falls apart. There are other bogus arguments encapsulated in this smear, but the five paragraphs shown below are entirely sufficient to address the specious property rights argument.
July 5, 2009 — 10:52 am
Dave Shafer says:
A pretty argument, but doesn’t hold water. Hard to defend your land from the trail of tears or from the wrong end of a gun. Seems to me land in Arizona used to be in Mexican hands too, taken from Spain. But they lost it by being at the wrong end of a gun also. So what you get is what history actually tells us, the winner of wars make the rules and subsumes the resources [including land].
But your original point is interesting. But how do you deal with those who destroy your land’s value from the outside? That is if someone decides to pollute the stream going by your land which destroys the value of your land? This is of course the foundation of government rules. No doubt the government has done their share of damage, but your neighbors can and will do the same if you let them.
July 5, 2009 — 11:11 am
Greg Swann says:
The argument I made is unassailable. This is why you don’t quote from it, even as you endeavor to change the subject.
> That is if someone decides to pollute the stream going by your land which destroys the value of your land?
That’s a tort case. They’re adjudicated every day.
July 5, 2009 — 11:45 am
Dave Shafer says:
“The argument I made is unassailable. This is why you don’t quote from it,…”
Actually, I always thought of you as extremely bright and capable; not needing your own words regurgitated back to you.
“… That is if someone decides to pollute the stream going by your land which destroys the value of your land?
That’s a tort case. They’re adjudicated every day.”
So you agree that the government rightfully places limits on the use of private lands in the form of rules, regulations and laws?????
If so how does that work with this statement? “The essence of our freedom is the free ownership of the land, and yet everywhere we turn, private property is subjected to one law after another, and everything that is not forbidden is compulsory instead.”
And of course if cases are adjudicated every day [you are right about this] then maybe the ending of this statement is not quite accurate?
“No one burns down his own home, nor his neighbor’s home.”
And finally I was reacting to this statement with my post:
“So if you fail to defend your right to your property, no one else is obliged to defend it for you, or to suffer your loss in your place. Thus can property rights be terminated by theft.”
It seems to me to state the obvious here, that since the rules are being made by the victors [Spain, Mexico, New Mexico/Arizona, USA] and the ability to defend property rights is not evenly distributed [especially to the losers of wars],it is disingenuous to claim a loss of rights due to a lack of a defense that would be impossible to perform due to being on the losing end of a war or uneven economic power [see Trumps taking of land from a retired women of very modest means]or lack of access to above mentioned torts.
July 5, 2009 — 4:25 pm
Greg Swann says:
Dave: It does not seem plausible to me that you are addressing me in order to learn what I know. As with Robert’s comment yesterday, this all looks like display behavior to me. Either way, I don’t intend to waste any more time on this.
July 5, 2009 — 4:46 pm
Dave Shafer says:
OK Greg. Not sure what “display behavior” is but it doesn’t really matter since you refuse to have a discussion. Have a great week.
July 5, 2009 — 5:24 pm
David Losh says:
OK, Let’s try this.
The indigenous people of North America, for lack of a better term, have a similar belief system as those people in the Arab world, God. or Allah, owns the land. We are visitors who use the land at His pleasure.
In Palestine you may notice the posters of the Mayan Pyramids. The claim some people in the Middle East have is that the entire world was claimed during the time of the Pharaohs. It seems that Thor Heyerdahl also thought that the High Seas were easily transversed for thousands of years before there was a Spain, England, or Europe.
All property today is controlled by force. You have no higher claim to property than I do. It’s simply a matter of your perception.
My freedom is based on my willingness to be free. All I have in this life and the next is my soul. I own and control nothing more than my own mind and body and at times that is a challenge.
July 5, 2009 — 9:59 pm
Dave Shafer says:
David L,
“All property today is controlled by force. You have no higher claim to property than I do. It’s simply a matter of your perception.”
OK, I get this, but would reiterate that force is both martial and economic in nature.
“My freedom is based on my willingness to be free. All I have in this life and the next is my soul. I own and control nothing more than my own mind and body and at times that is a challenge.”
This is where it goes off the rails for me. For me people are born into situations that allow them more [or less] freedom. And no matter what one’s willingness to be free is, there are people who can’t overcome [either for “power” reasons or “psychological” reasons] the situation they were born into. I guess for some folks the willingness to try is enough even if it kills you in the process. Inspiring thoughts are great, but it doesn’t necessarily lead to a change in “power” arrangements.
That was my reaction to the original post which seemed to say theft was fine as long as it could be defended by force [either martial or psychological]. Much of this libertarian thought is the by-product of being a part [either directly or indirectly] of the powerful IMHO. Those that aren’t come up with much different theories of the world.
I will go back to lurking, looking for real estate ideas and stop reacting to the reactionary posts on here.
Gotta go to a meeting, have a great day!
July 6, 2009 — 8:20 am
David Losh says:
The greatest thing about the United States is the government by the people.
There are two types of people with power in the United States: the very wealthy and the very poor. The poor have nothing to lose. The wealthy have nothing to gain.
Your personal struggle for power starts at either end of that spectrum and it makes no difference which.
I could tell you stories of people who escape refugee camps and come to this country and are rich within twelve years. We have a black President and had a President who was raised by a single mom. There is organized crime that is emulated in books, songs, and movies. Our country invented the pet rock.
Opportunity is everywhere you turn in this country. For whatever the reasons, no matter who you are, no matter your class, race, or culture you have the opportunity to have wealth and power.
Let me rephrase that: you have the right to have wealth and power. It says so in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
July 6, 2009 — 7:24 pm
Matt D says:
just wanted to leave a note regarding the multifamily industry’s opposition to this legislature:
The bill requires the Secretary of Energy to establish a National Energy Efficiency Building Code by 2010 that is 30 percent more efficient than the 2004 version of the ASHRAE 90.1 Standard or the IECCC 2006 and 50 percent more efficient than either by 2016.
NAA/NMHC have expressed serious reservations regarding the short time frame to develop and adopt such aggressive targets in baseline building code performance. NAA/NMHCcommissioned research shows there are real practical and financial barriers preventing many apartment properties from significantly exceeding current codes. Moreover, higher levels of
improvement cannot be met in all climate zones using current technology.
July 7, 2009 — 2:04 pm
Michael Cook says:
Dave S.,
I agree with you. Your argument seemed quite reasonable and I am not sure why Greg didnt respond. Your points were quite clear and quite contrary to the piece that he sites, which I agree is rife with contradiction.
I suppose in Greg’s world we would have strip clubs/brothels next to elementary schools and armed gunman protecting our house, lest we “fail to defend it.” I am not really seeing where Greg has a leg to stand on.
July 8, 2009 — 12:33 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I suppose in Greg’s world we would have strip clubs/brothels next to elementary schools and armed gunman protecting our house, lest we “fail to defend it.” I am not really seeing where Greg has a leg to stand on.
The question would be, under what circumstances would Greg Swann advocate stepping up to a person innocent of any wrong-doing in order to threaten that person’s life, liberty or property, thus to coerce or forbid some sort of behavior?
You can exhaust yourself thinking of particular examples. The answer will always be never.
The fact is that coercing or forbidding other people’s behavior is exactly the same thing as abducting and compelling the labor of African natives — in that particular case because they happened to be exceptionally poor at defending themselves from what no one disputes was ugly, evil, criminal conduct.
That you are so often the advocate of exactly the same sorts of crimes does not redound to your credit. That you affect not to understand that you are an advocate of ugly, evil, criminal conduct is even more distressing.
If you want to know what I know, ask. I conceal nothing. If you want to jeer at me for being a very outspoken opponent of the modern methods of enslaving innocent people, jeer away.
July 9, 2009 — 5:46 pm
Brian Brady says:
“I suppose in Greg’s world we would have strip clubs/brothels next to elementary schools…”
Come now. Which patron wants to be seen by his kids entering a strip club? It would be bad business to locate a brothel next to a school.
“… and armed gunman protecting our house, lest we “fail to defend it.””
Choose your neighbors carefully. This is where consensus gov’t (the HOA) comes into play. In the summer, our local sheriff’s deputies can’t handle the summer crowds, who infiltrate our neighborhood, in search of free parking. We solved that problem, 3 years ago, with a security guard.
July 8, 2009 — 2:52 pm
Michael Cook says:
“Come now. Which patron wants to be seen by his kids entering a strip club? It would be bad business to locate a brothel next to a school.”
Apparently you have not been to New York City. 48th St and 7 Ave., a very seedy block with strip clubs less then a block away from a high school. The local strip club goers dont seem to mind.
July 9, 2009 — 1:53 pm
David Losh says:
From your comment it is clear you misunderstand what you wrote in your post. The people in Africa are warriors.
The people who have a prior claim to the lands we enjoy are also warriors.
You are empowering the thugs who would lay claim to the land.
It’s not yours. You have no free land. The land cost you and every one around you.
You have debt. That debt was by the same type of swindle that cost all good men, women, and children their freedom.
Your government is the only thing that even gives you the illusion of freedom and you condemn it.
July 9, 2009 — 8:10 pm
Teri L says:
I’ve read this post over and over again. It’s lovely, really.
>It is the husbandry of the land — each man to his own parcel — that most makes husbands of us, that sweeps away our willingness to live as brigands or rapists or thugs.
>By robbing the private ownership of the land of its meaning, the state is, by increments, robbing its citizens of their humanity. No one burns down his own home, nor his neighbor’s home. But when the time comes that we all seem to own our homes only by sufferance, none of us will have anything left to defend.
One place that is mine alone to care for. Yes, people lived there before and will live there after I’ve gone, but for this little moment in time, this little place is mine to nurture and care for.
I’m a mother. My children were born of me, but they are free souls. I don’t own them, they are not chattel. I care for them, nurture them, try my best to raise them well. I will defend them to the death.
I want a place to tend- on my own if I choose. To defend on my own if I choose. And I want my neighbor to have the freedom to feel as passionately about their little parcel as well, because this way, we both understand each other, we quite literally share a common ground.
If, little by little, bit by bit, more and more of what happens to my little place is dictated by someone else, regardless of who else it happens to be, I lose passion for nurturing this little piece of happiness. If the same thing is happening to my neighbor, our common ground becomes less meaningful. “Who cares what happens? I can’t control it anyway” my neighbor and I say to each other. “Screw it.”
We know of parents who have looked at their own children and said “Who cares what happens? I can’t control it anyway. Screw it.” And we all what happens to these children- brigands and rapists and thugs. We have to defend our right and freedom to nurture that which we have a right and responsibility to nurture.
July 10, 2009 — 10:39 am
Greg Swann says:
Teri, you are every day a consolation to me. There is nothing that I talk about that is not completely obvious to a normal four-year-old child, and the elaborate mental contortions people go through to deny the undeniable is no source of joy to me. I’m very grateful to you for having so carefully cultivated your humanity.
July 10, 2009 — 4:33 pm