Private property: where to draw the line, and our social responsibilities.


Machjo
#1
I was wondering where you draw the line at private property rights?

At one extreme end of the spectrum, some might say we can do whatever we want with our property. For example, if I want to start a chicken farm in my residential neighbourhood or right next to a patio restaurant, that's my business because it's my property. And if the chicken farm doesn't make enough money, maybe I could convert it to a commercial helicopter landing pad or a coal power plant, a casino, or even a rock-n'-roll stadium. I'm sure the neighbours would appreciate me.

Others would argue that the right to private property is conditional on its impact beyond its boundaries.

Another argument could apply to social advantage. For instance, let's suppose I live in an expensive neighbourhood and my neighbour decides to convert his property into a large apartment complex to alleviate the shortage of affordable housing in the community. On the one hand, this project could hurt my property value. On the other hand, to prohibit him from building the complex could prevent housing from becoming more affordable for the local poor, or alternatively force them to live farther away from work and so have to spend more time and money on transportation. In such a case, when city bylaws interfere with the free market to the detriment of the poor, what obligation does it then have to compensate the poor for such interference in the market?

My personal view would be that the government has a right to regulate the first set of examples above as that has to do with quality of life for local residents. However, I'd tend to oppose government interference in the second example above as it involves the government interfering in the free market to the explicit benefit of the rich over the poor, so as to artificially maintain high property values.

Of course there could be many other viewpoints, but where would you draw the line to the right to private property?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#2
This is why we theoretically have zoning. If you want to build a commercial enterprise you buy land zoned for commercial. Cities have various residential zonings for just that purpose. Some are single family, mixed, multi family etc. We have acreage just to keep the neighbours at bay so we can do much as we want. Where problems arise is when someone buys a politician or two or some city planner decides to change the zoning in an established neighbourhood. The less than brilliant bureaucrats in Vancouver recently decided that one could have chickens in a residential area which many that live there do not want and may very well be why they chose that area to buy in the first place.
 
petros
+1
#3  Top Rated Post
By-laws and there is no such thing as "private property". You may occupy a private space but it sure as **** isn't your property.
 
gerryh
+1
#4
I think vouchers would be good. Everyone can get vouchers. Wouldn't vouchers be just nifty? I think vouchers would solve all the problems.
 
Machjo
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

This is why we theoretically have zoning. If you want to build a commercial enterprise you buy land zoned for commercial. Cities have various residential zonings for just that purpose. Some are single family, mixed, multi family etc. We have acreage just to keep the neighbours at bay so we can do much as we want. Where problems arise is when someone buys a politician or two or some city planner decides to change the zoning in an established neighbourhood. The less than brilliant bureaucrats in Vancouver recently decided that one could have chickens in a residential area which many that live there do not want and may very well be why they chose that area to buy in the first place.

My point though was that a strict capitalist would oppose the very notion of "zoning". In other words, once you buy the property, it's yours to do whatever you want with it. I doubt though that many people are that capitalist. I'd say that while we tend to be more conservative and capitalist in federal and provincial elections, in municipal elections the dividing line between capitalist and socialist kind of disappears, with all really being different shades of socialist on the recognition that city planning involves deciding how to allocate 2 or 3 dimensional tracts of land. At that stage few would take on the position of simply deregulating land use altogether except the most extreme libertarian capitalists. Most would instead debate HOW to allocate that land, at which stage it really becomes a debate between various shades of socialism (which I'm not using in any negative or pejorative sense here).

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I think vouchers would be good. Everyone can get vouchers. Wouldn't vouchers be just nifty? I think vouchers would solve all the problems.

Can you explain that? What? Property vouchers? How exactly would that work?
 
petros
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I think vouchers would be good. Everyone can get vouchers. Wouldn't vouchers be just nifty? I think vouchers would solve all the problems.

You've lost me on that one gerryh although that's not a tough feat some mornings.
 
Machjo
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

You've lost me on that one gerryh although that's not a tough feat some mornings.

I hear ya... Sorry, I mean, I read ya.
 
gerryh
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post


Can you explain that? What? Property vouchers? How exactly would that work?


The same way all vouchers work.... you just hand em in...right...... You should understand, you being the voucher king and all. Vouchers are the answer to everything. Saves money and makes everyone happy.
 
petros
#9
So you mean you get a voucher to move onto a property?
 
Machjo
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

The same way all vouchers work.... you just hand em in...right...... You should understand, you being the voucher king and all. Vouchers are the answer to everything. Saves money and makes everyone happy.

I certainly like the idea of school vouchers, because there is evidence that they work. Just google the Swedish voucher.

However, I don't see how this relates in the least to the allocation of property. Can you give any instance of where a property-voucher system is currently in place, and how it works? Thanks.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So you mean you get a voucher to move onto a property?

That's what I'd like to know.
 
petros
#11
Oh how wonderful. If I can afford to send my kid to a private school I get a voucher or tax credit?

Well gee there is nothing like segregating society to make for a happy nation.
 
Machjo
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Oh how wonderful. If I can afford to send my kid to a private school I get a voucher or tax credit?

Well gee there is nothing like segregating society to make for a happy nation.

The Swedish voucher cannot be topped up, and participating voucher schools cannot charge extra. This means that all parents, rich or poor, can send their child to any voucher school he wants. Should a school want to charge more than the value of the voucher, it cannot participate in the voucher programme, so parents who want to send their children to that school forfeit their voucher and pay out of pocket.

So now I'm wondering what you're talking about.
 
petros
#13
So if there is a better school that's not downtown Oslo it's better for my kid to get up at 5AM and sit on a bus going to a better neighbourhood with a better school? What if I can't afford the transportation across town for my kids?
 
Machjo
#14
BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Swedish parents enjoy school choice

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So if there is a better school that's not downtown Oslo it's better for my kid to get up at 5AM and sit on a bus going to a better neighbourhood with a better school? What if I can't afford the transportation across town for my kids?

I don't know the details on that point.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Swedish parents enjoy school choice



I don't know the details on that point.

However, I can't imagine it to be worse than the current transportation policy with our current school system in Ontario.
 
Corduroy
#15
Property is theft, comrades.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So if there is a better school that's not downtown Oslo it's better for my kid to get up at 5AM and sit on a bus going to a better neighbourhood with a better school? What if I can't afford the transportation across town for my kids?

Transportation voucher!
 
Machjo
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

Property is theft, comrades.



Transportation voucher!

I'd disagree with to that. All that would do is promote traffic congestion. In some cases there may be a couple of schools on a parent's way to work. In such cases, it might turn out well for the parent to be able to freely benefit from any of the schools en-route. It might even be that, based on the car's trajectory, that a school farther from home is more convenient than one closer to home owing to its being enroute to the parent's place of work, whereas the school closer to home might be more out of the way. Why not allow parents to benefit from this?
 
Corduroy
+1
#17
You're a funny guy Machjo
 
Machjo
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

You're a funny guy Machjo

?
 
gerryh
#19
I know, I know, I know, we could use a voucher system for medical care. Everybody gets a voucher for cancer treatment, 2 doctors visits a year, since we can't be sexist or ageist, one colonoscopy every 2 years from birth..........
 
Machjo
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I know, I know, I know, we could use a voucher system for medical care. Everybody gets a voucher for cancer treatment, 2 doctors visits a year, since we can't be sexist or ageist, one colonoscopy every 2 years from birth..........

I don't know the details of the Swedish health care system, but I do know that it does involve the private sector two, and does allow for two-tier health care, and Sweden's is among the best in the world.
 
gerryh
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I don't know the details of the Swedish health care system, but I do know that it does involve the private sector two, and does allow for two-tier health care, and Sweden's is among the best in the world.


WOW, Sweden has two private sectors? Is that place good or what? Maybe that's the place you should be living in.
 
Machjo
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

WOW, Sweden has two private sectors? Is that place good or what? Maybe that's the place you should be living in.

That was a typo. But yes, they do allow for priave health care. That doesn't mean the government doesn't spend much of the GDP on health care, perhaps more than Canada, and taxes are higher too. However, it does not rely exclusively on taxation, but allows the private sector too to alleviate some of the burden on the public system. And why not? If a person pays high taxes to the public ssytem and then chooses to not use it, why would we prevent that?
 
gerryh
#23
so then, we should have vouchers for school, vouchers for property, vouchers for medical......... what else should we have vouchers for? How about sex? Should we have vouchers for sex too? I mean if vouchers work so well every where else, sex would be good too...right? I'm sure you can come up with an example of how great sex is in Sweden too(note the double "o"), right?
 
Machjo
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

so then, we should have vouchers for school, vouchers for property, vouchers for medical......... what else should we have vouchers for? How about sex? Should we have vouchers for sex too? I mean if vouchers work so well every where else, sex would be good too...right? I'm sure you can come up with an example of how great sex is in Sweden too(note the double "o"), right?

I could agree with vouchers for school because it's a proven system that already works in some countries.

I do find it strange though that not long ago, you seemed to oppose vouchers. But honestly though, i can't wrap my head around how vouchers would work in allocating property. As for medical vouchers, I'm undecided, but again I'm not aware of any place that it's used. Could you explain in more detail how property vouchers would work, and how exactly medical vouchers could work?
 
gerryh
#25
roflmfao, unbelievable, just un_fu_cking_believable.
 
petros
#26
Sweden is one of the most Socialists States going. They can do that when they get 16% royalties on nat gas rather than 1% like we do.

How can they do that without all the companies packing up and moving elsewhere?
 
gerryh
#27
It just blows me away, but actually it shouldn't. I figured that everyone would pick up on the absolute stupidity and insanity of "vouchers" for property and then medical, and then even sex. I see though that I was wrong, the one person that doesn't see the stupidity of vouchers for education also can't seem to see the stupidity of "vouchers" in other things.
 
petros
#28
Vouchers for sex? **** that. I already bought a self-renewing seasons pass almost 21 years ago.
 
Machjo
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Sweden is one of the most Socialists States going. They can do that when they get 16% royalties on nat gas rather than 1% like we do.

How can they do that without all the companies packing up and moving elsewhere?

I would describe Sweden as more social corporatist than labour-socialist.

Yes they have high taxes, but school vouchers hardly sounds hard core socialist to me. Sweden has no minimum wage. It also turned down Saab's bailout request last recession. And it allows private involvement in its health care system. Add to that that it's a pro-free-trade country that joined the EU and benefits from common educational standards across the EU for trades and professions, along with inter-EU free trade.

If the NDP adopted policies more in line with Sweden's, it could easily win a landslide victory in Canada. I don't see it hapepning any time soon though without major internal reform of the NDP.
 
Mowich
Conservative
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I was wondering where you draw the line at private property rights?
At one extreme end of the spectrum, some might say we can do whatever we want with our property. For example, if I want to start a chicken farm in my residential neighbourhood or right next to a patio restaurant, that's my business because it's my property. And if the chicken farm doesn't make enough money, maybe I could convert it to a commercial helicopter landing pad or a coal power plant, a casino, or even a rock-n'-roll stadium. I'm sure the neighbours would appreciate me.
Others would argue that the right to private property is conditional on its impact beyond its boundaries.
Another argument could apply to social advantage. For instance, let's suppose I live in an expensive neighbourhood and my neighbour decides to convert his property into a large apartment complex to alleviate the shortage of affordable housing in the community. On the one hand, this project could hurt my property value. On the other hand, to prohibit him from building the complex could prevent housing from becoming more affordable for the local poor, or alternatively force them to live farther away from work and so have to spend more time and money on transportation. In such a case, when city bylaws interfere with the free market to the detriment of the poor, what obligation does it then have to compensate the poor for such interference in the market?
My personal view...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Your title poses the question of private property and the possible boundaries of social responsibility. I wonder where you would stand on the question of societal responsibility towards the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution?
 

Similar Threads

2
Aboriginals Support Private Property Rights
by dumpthemonarchy | May 24th, 2011
29
0
Why Private Property Matters
by Toro | Jan 15th, 2006
16
When do you draw the line?????
by peapod | Mar 27th, 2005
no new posts