Galileo Blogs

My prior posts are in agreement with this position. To put my overall position in its simplest form possible, Americans are entitled to take whatever actions against foreigners to protect ourselves, so long as we do not violate anyone's individual rights, including those of foreigners. As I have stated, it is not a violation of the rights of foreign individuals to restrict their entry if we suspect they may physically harm Americans. We do not need to establish that they are criminals, only that we have a well-founded reason that they represent a threat. This includes actual criminals (using our standards of law, not, say, the standard of a dictatorship which views a dissident as a criminal), people who may not be convicted criminals but for whom we have objective reasons for fearing what they might do here (e.g., someone who in his youth trained at a madrassa run by a radical Islamic cleric), residents of countries with whom we are at war, suspected spies and saboteurs of enemy countries, etc. The standard of evidence can and should be different. That is why I offered that special immigration courts would adjudicate situations when a foreigner was denied entry, and challenged that decision. It is permissible to have a different standard of evidence because the immigration proceeding is not a criminal proceeding. There are no penalties attached to the potential immigrant; he is only denied entry. Furthermore, as a practical matter, it would be impossible to have standard "trials" to adjudicate the entry of millions of people. None of this violates anyone's rights; it protects Americans; and it is consistent with open immigration for those who are not a physical threat to us. Finally, to state my position on your central point as explicitly as I can. Yes, foreigners have the right of entry, if they do not represent a physical threat to Americans. This is not some sort of primary right or self-sacrificial bestowal on foreigners. What is true is simply that foreigners possess individual rights, just as we do, and that includes the freedom to go wherever you want (as long as you are not threatening someone else).

I'll just stand on the principle that immigration is good. It is good for immigrants, it is good for Americans, and it upholds the individual rights of everyone, foreign and domestic. I suspect that if a small portion of immigrants on balance hurt Americans by consuming government benefits, it really is small and largely inconsequential compared with the vast bulk of immigration, which is beneficial. Whether I am right or wrong on this issue cannot be determined without a good deal of empirical work, which I am unwilling to do for purposes of this debate. So, on this narrower subject of whether a portion of immigration should be curtailed until the welfare state is eliminated, I am unlikely to comment further. If anyone still contends that open immigration (excluding criminals, enemies, et al.) in a free society is wrong, by all means present your arguments.

Well, the problem with using illegals as a reference point is that they are made less productive because they are illegal. They have to work under the table and for low wages because the higher paying jobs demand proof of legal status. Also, all of the other means of saving money, accumulating capital and starting businesses are made more difficult with illegal status. Legalizing the illegals would make them more productive. If we had anything less than open immigration (which implies exclusion of criminals, enemies, et al.), I could only see it as a temporary measure under our welfare state. Even if we did have a temporarily more selective immigration policy, it would have to be far, far more open than the system we have today. In fact, why not just allow open immigration and forbid immigrants from receiving welfare benefits?? As for all those scientists, businessmen, engineers, software designers, et al., let them all in without any restriction whatsoever. I would still argue for open immigration right now, even with our current welfare state. However, to really make that case I would have to do some statistical work in measuring just how much immigrants consume welfare benefits, etc., versus how much they produce (which I am not going to do!). My supposition is that even these immigrants represent a net economic positive. (For instance, I have heard how some California growers have had trouble harvesting their crops because border guards have kept out more Mexicans. All of us pay higher prices for vegetables and fruit as a result.)

I am still thinking about this topic, particularly the key issue of whether debts should be extinguished in bankruptcy, so I will not address that issue here. Rather, I want to address a mistaken premise in the above quote. That premise is that bankruptcy solely occurs through moral failure. Clearly, that is not true. What if a debtor gets into a car accident and becomes a quadriplegic, and can no longer earn the money to pay his debt? One can think of multitudinous examples like this, with varying degrees of moral culpability. Clearly, if someone cannot pay a debt because he has become incapacitated, there is no moral issue at all in his failure to pay his debt. In this case, bankruptcy is a legal recognition of his inability to pay, and a court-supervised liquidation of his assets to pay what portion of the debt he can pay.

I don't think it is necessary to come up with statistics that Muslims are responsible for most of the terrorism that is threatening the United States. A simple listing of the many terrorist acts by Muslims, whether Persians or Arabs, is sufficient to validate that point.

It is unfortunate that socialism creates a lifeboat-type situation. I cannot deny the harm caused by immigrants where you live using services that you pay for through taxes, such as hospitals, schools, and welfare benefits. The same phenomenon exists here in New York City where large numbers of immigrants consume public housing, hospital care, public schools and welfare benefits. However, at the same time, most of these people are also working, and creating wealth. They work in multifarious jobs such as restaurants, cleaning buildings, etc. If they are legal, they can get better-paying jobs in offices, and send their kids to college, where they can do even better. If they cannot attain legal status, quite often all they can do is menial-type labor that is less value-creating. Why not legalize these illegal aliens, so that they can become even more productive? Unfortunately, immigration laws also keep out scientists and engineers from all over the world. They keep out well-heeled businessmen from Hong Kong and other places who want to set up business here. They keep out software designers from India. They keep out bankers and doctors. They prevent spouses from working whose husbands or wives gain temporary permission to work here. They prevent productive families from being united. And, they also keep out farm laborers who harvest crops and laborers who work in kitchens and clean offices. On balance, even with the problem of some immigrants consuming government-provided services, I would contend that the benefits of immigration are far greater than the harms it causes. Immigrants create wealth, they advance the division of labor and the accumulation of capital; they advance our standard of living. This is especially true for the type of immigrants I mention above who are being excluded today. Of course, that would not be any solace to you if, in your part of the United States, you were being harmed from too many immigrants using public services. (At the same time, you are also benefiting from the labor of the types of people I mention above, to the extent they are allowed in.) I think it is reasonable to argue that free immigration should be one of the later reforms, like eliminating taxation. I would disagree, arguing that it can be one of the first reforms, that its benefits are much greater than the harms it causes. I would go further and suggest that it could help force the issue of government funding of welfare benefits, public hospitals and public housing in border areas. Governments might be induced to stop providing those services, which would be a good thing. But the main reason I want immigrants coming here is because of all the wealth-creating benefits they provide, on balance, as I describe above. In any case, it appears we are both in favor of free immigration in a free society. That is good!

I am not sure how to address your argument directly, except to repeat my point that all humans have individual rights and no government has the right to violate them. It makes no difference whether a person is a resident, citizen or foreigner; no government can violate an individual's rights. A government can and must act to defend the rights of the citizens who engage it, who "hire" it to perform that function. A government is elected by its citizens; being a citizen means having the right to vote and run for government office. However, that government cannot violate anyone's rights, including the rights held by foreigners or non-citizen residents. There is no "duty" of a government to do anything with regard to a foreigner; it simply must not violate that foreigner's rights. Not violating a foreigner's rights is entirely consistent with two government functions: (1) preventing the immigration of individuals who will harm citizens through the use or threat of use of force; (2) setting up standards for becoming a citizen. To expand these points: (1) Governments should and must keep out criminals, agents of enemy countries (spies, saboteurs, etc.), residents of enemy countries in war-time, and any other individual who objectively represents a threat to the rights of individual citizens in the country. This is a valid use of a government's policing function, and is entirely consistent with respecting the individual rights of foreigners. Protecting the rights of citizens does not conflict with the obligation not to violate the rights of foreigners and everyone else. The problem I have with some of the preceding discussion is that it implies that somehow it is necessary to violate the rights of foreigners in order to protect citizens. Leaving aside whether that is permissible, why is it ever necessary to do that? (2) Governments must set standards for deciding who becomes a citizen. Being a citizen implies more than just being a resident of a country. A resident is simply someone who decides to live in our country for a certain period of time. A citizen has decided to live here (more or less) permanently and should be able to demonstrate loyalty to America and its constitutional republican form of government. That is why today there is a citizenship exam that asks basic questions to ascertain knowledge of American political institutions. (I am not saying the current test is valid, but only that such a basic test is valid, in principle.) A citizen is entitled to serve in certain government positions that a non-citizen cannot. He can serve in positions where he is defending the interests of American citizens; a non-citizen could not serve in those positions. Such positions presumably would include the President, a soldier in the military, certain law enforcement positions, etc. Finally, only citizens can vote. By establishing their knowledge and loyalty to the American form of government, they can involve themselves in guiding that government by voting and running for office. No one would become a citizen automatically upon entering America, but only after he has lived here for a period of time, so that he can gain the knowledge required to be a citizen, and have a basis for making the decision whether to become one. Yes, a border is legitimate. Governments function within a geographical region. Exercising authority over immigration is a policing function of government that is performed on the borders. *** On a more anecdotal level, I have some other thoughts: I think what is hanging people up on the immigration issue is a remnant of the modern view of government as being all-powerful and having a lot to do. In contrast to today's government, the government of a free society would do almost nothing. Most of the time, it simply has to obey the dictum of refraining from violating anyone's rights. So, its primary duty is negative: don't use force to violate rights. Its only positive function is to act against criminals, both here and abroad. Governments are not an agent of "our" domestic gang of citizens versus "those foreigners" out there. Those foreigners really are just like us, they just happen to live in another country. Foreigners who are criminals, we stop at the border. Domestic residents who are criminals, we put in jail. Everyone else, if they are not criminals or residents of an enemy country, etc., are simply productive people like us. Even in today's world with its abundance of irrationalism, I would argue that most immigrants are simply productive people like "us". Living in New York I see foreigners all around me. They are driving taxis, running hot dog stands; they are doctors, bankers and even lawyers (one friend of mine emigrated from the old Soviet Union when he was 13 and today is a successful attorney). As for foreigners having evil or non-productive values, such as many Muslims or, perhaps, some Latin Americans, or [insert group name here], why is that any different than the multitudinous welfare recipient Americans who vote to pillage the productive among us? In fact, I would say that generally the foreigners who come here are better than the residents of the countries they come from. By definition, they will be more ambitious than their peers. By and large, they are coming here to work hard, make money, and make a good life for themselves. Interestingly, my observation is that most of what I call the "welfare bums" are native-born Americans, not immigrants. The danger of the welfare state will not be solved by keeping foreigners out. In fact, America will benefit from the strong work ethic most foreigners have. Instead, we must dismantle the welfare state. Bad ideas held by foreigners are not the primary danger either. At any given time, there are far more Americans than foreigners in our country agitating for more welfare, more subsidies, and more government regulations. Keeping out the foreigners is not a solution to the problem of bad ideas. Better ideas (i.e., Objectivism) are the only solution. Finally, I think it is useful to recall past immigrations. For example, consider the Chinese, who were the first ethnic group targeted by anti-immigration laws. How did Americans feel when these strange people who looked different (and smoked opium, for crying out loud), ate weird food, and had all kinds of odd customs and habits, came here? Go to any Chinatown today and you will never find a harder-working group of people. Or, how about the Irish and Italian immigrants who were looked down upon? Both ethnic groups were stereotyped and seen as thoroughly alien to native Americans, in terms of their values and customs. Yet today, both ethnic groups are seen as thoroughly American as apple pie. How about all of the Germans (the second largest immigrant group during the late 1800s and early 1900s), who in many communities stuck to speaking German for decades? Today, they are thoroughly assimilated. I know I am beating a strawman here with these examples, but I want to bring them up anyway, just to be reminded of how fearful Americans were with past immigrant waves. I, for one, am not afraid of today's immigrants. I welcome all of them to our shores. Yes, I am not happy about having large numbers of Muslims here, but if we ever do declare war against our real Muslim enemies abroad, we can exclude their residents from coming here as necessary. Otherwise, and in general, the more immigrants the better, and from every corner of the earth (Africans, Indians, Latin Americans, Europeans...). Of course, I can also say that I am a great-great grandson of an immigrant family, just as every one of us is (including Native Americans, whose ancestors emigrated over the Alaskan-Siberian land bridge millennia ago). Whew, now that was a long post! I've got a National Anthem singing contest to go to now.

Well, everyone, foreigner or domestic resident/citizen, has rights. As part of one's right to life and property, one possesses the freedom and right to live wherever one pleases. No government can tell someone where he can live. I do not see why that does not apply equally to everyone, regardless of where he is domiciled. Now, here is the issue. There are legitimate reasons for denying entry to a foreigner. If he is a criminal, an agent or resident of an enemy country, or in some other way demonstrably represents a threat of force against Americans, he can and should be barred from entry. The reason for barring entry is that the foreigner represents an objective threat to the rights of American residents & citizens. So, foreigners who threaten the rights of Americans are denied entry. Now, consider: If a foreigner is not threatening the rights of Americans, what would be the reason for denying him entry? I think you would agree that barring freedom of movement to a peaceful and non-threatening person is a violation of his rights. To do that of foreigners would deny them their rights. Yes, they have a right to emigrate to the United States. However, if they are peaceful and non-threatening, they are... peaceful and non-threatening. They are not a threat to Americans and should be permitted entry. Having said all that, I would agree that the government should have a fair amount of discretion in deciding whether someone represents a threat. For example, a spy from a country that is hostile to us, but against whom we have not declared war, could and should be denied entry. I do not have a problem with special immigration courts that would adjudicate lawsuits arising from such decisions. As a side observation, I wonder how often a real spy would sue for entry, when in the act of defending himself, he would have to blow his cover. The bottom line is that I do not think national security is compromised by respecting the right of everyone to live where he wants, whether he is domestic or foreign, and upholding what is implied by that right: foreigners have a right to move to the United States. In fact, I would contend that if foreigners' rights could be violated -- if foreigners could be denied entry for arbitrary or racist or political reasons -- then a government with such power against foreigners becomes a threat to Americans. Abusive government power cannot be compartmentalized in one area. It always metastasizes until it invades every area of life.

You could do it that way, but what I was thinking of is simply picking out the best posts on however many threads are highlighted in the monthly email. So, if 10 threads are summarized as in the example, for each of them show the one or two best posts. I actually enjoy just reading the best posts. A good post is enjoyable to read because it is well written and because it causes me to think about the topic, hopefully in a new way. If the topic interests me further, I can then go to the thread to read more posts. The problem with only featuring threads is that any thread is a mixed bag. There can be many mediocre, one-liner or not particularly interesting posts, in addition to the good ones. Having said that, I do like SoftwareNerd's idea of summarizing the threads in a couple sentences, as shown in the example. That way, I have a summary of all the "action" going on in the forum. Picking out the best post(s) in each forum is an added value.

The idea is a good one for those occasional users, and to entice more users. I have another suggestion. It would involve more time, so it may not be worth it. How about selecting one or two of the best postings on each topic? You could provide the links to one or two key postings underneath the descriptive summaries in your example. I really enjoy seeing those well-written postings that make me think. Of course, I am spending the time to find them, but only on a handful of topics that I am currently tracking. It would be neat to see "the best of" selections of postings on other topics that I might not otherwise spend time on. It would probably entice me to dive deeper into some other topics.

All humans have rights by virtue of being humans. Is it no less a violation of rights if a government harms a foreigner than if he harms a citizen or resident? When would it ever be moral to violate the rights of foreigners? If immigration is used for the purposes I mention, that is consistent with upholding everyone's rights, both those of the domestic residents/citizens and of foreigners. Furthermore, speaking as a citizen, when is it in my self-interest to deny the rights of foreigners? This points up the fact that immigration is, as a general rule, highly beneficial to me as a citizen. I benefit from the productive labor, ingenuity and capital that is brought to America by its immigrants. So, I am making two points: (1) A government cannot violate the rights of any individual, whether he is foreign or domestic. (2) It is in my self-interest as an American citizen not to have foreigners' rights violated, including their right to settle here (subject to the exclusions I already mentioned). The latter is part of anyone's right to life & property.

Nice summary of the immigration debate, SoftwareNerd. In answer to Inspector's question above, he is failing to distinguish between immigration and citizenship. Even under our current laws an immigrant must wait a period of time (is it 7 years?) before becoming a citizen. It is immoral to restrict immigration, except for the sole reason of keeping out criminals, terrorists and residents of enemy countries. The reason is that a person has the right to live where he wants; such right is part of his right to life and property. When it comes to becoming a citizen, I do think certain restrictions are permissible. I haven't thought the issue through, but citizenship today requires a demonstration of some knowledge and appreciation of the American system of government. That seems appropriate. Personally, I do not think speaking English should be a requirement, but it seems entirely reasonable and practical to give the citizenship test in English, since that is our country's dominant language. Of course, if an immigrant has failed to learn any English in 7 years (or whatever waiting period that is called for by the future immigration law), he would have trouble passing the test. Interestingly, in a laissez faire society, there would be very little difference in status between being a citizen and non-citizen. Any individual living in this country would have the full protection of government. The non-citizen would only lack the right to vote. *** From SoftWareNerd: I disagree with this argument, apparently held by some Objectivists. It is a dangerous idea to advocate more government controls as an answer to problems caused by existing government controls. One should never advocate government controls for any reason I can think of, because doing so sanctions the growth of government power. The answer to the above situation is to eliminate taxes, and thereby remove any apparent injustice against tax-paying citizens. By advocating the above view, one puts oneself in alliance with the typical anti-immigrationist who wants to keep out immigrants for the other reasons mentioned in SoftwareNerd's post, or simply because he fears foreigners. Also, I doubt there is much validity to the argument in economic terms. It may be true for some border regions where lots of illegal Mexican immigrants live. I would use the existence of that problem to argue for the legalization of their immigrant status so the Mexicans could earn more money as legally-recognized workers. The fact of being illegal residents limits the Mexicans to lower-paying jobs. Also, I would use the existence of immigrant burdens on public hospitals and schools to call for the ending of government provision of those services.

Yes, that is what is done in a bankruptcy court. As to the issue of willingness to pay, obviously a person must pay an obligation if he can. The court would force him to do it, in that instance. Also, to be clear, that would not occur in a bankruptcy court, but simply as the result of a lawsuit, where the one party would sue the other for payment. I wasn't implying that unwillingness to pay was a legitimate reason for not paying an obligation, only that it is a circumstance that would warrant judicial remediation. Bankruptcy addresses the situation where a person cannot meet all of his obligations. Bankruptcy addresses the case where a person is insolvent, or his debts exceed his assets and his income is such that he cannot reasonably pay off his debts. I made some other points in my post which, I contend, are also relevant to the discussion. For example: and

The fact that contracts are legally enforceable doesn't mean that you can collect your debt. There are several circumstances where a party to a contract will not get the full amount he is owed, with which I think you would agree. For example, if the party you have a deal with dies and his estate has insufficient funds to pay what you are owed, you are out of luck. In the case of corporations, the whole issue of bankruptcy is clearly part of the terms of dealing with a corporation: they have limited liability. This means that the owner of the corporation can bankrupt it and you, the creditor, will only have recourse to the assets of the corporation. If the corporate assets are less than the debt amount, you lose. However, that was the risk you signed up for when you agreed to do business with a corporation. The legal form of a corporation exists as recognition of a customary contractual provision that has emerged because it is useful to all parties concerned: limited liability. Is there not some sort of "limited liability" that is an implied term of dealing with individuals? I would like a lawyer's perspective on this one, if there are any out there who would care to comment. I would contend that there are limits. Obviously, death of the contracting party is one of those, as I described above. Ailment, disability, reversal of fortune or even simple unwillingness to pay are all limits. The bankruptcy process is a way of resolving a situation where one party cannot or will not fulfill his part of the contractual obligation. The bankruptcy process determines how to pay someone at least part of his obligations when the other party cannot. Obviously, if it is simple willfulness, and the contracting party has the means to fulfill his obligations, the courts will compel him to do so. But if he cannot, what are you to do? I would contend that virtually no one would want to sign a debt agreement if it meant that he faced a life-time obligation to pay regardless of his personal circumstances. He gets blinded in a car accident and can only find employment at a minimal subsistence level, yet he still retains over the course of his life the full value obligation of that $100,000 business loan that he personally co-signed? Or the $25,000 credit card bill that he amassed when he was able-bodied and prudently and reasonably expected he could pay off the debt? It is in a lender's self-interest for there to be a way to liquidate an obligation, get what you can, and move on. Otherwise, very few people would want to conduct business with a lender if such recourse were not available to lift the un-payable part of an obligation. As to the credit card deadbeats who recklessly amass debt only to get "bankruptcy reboots" every 7 years, this is clearly immoral and in all likelihood a rational set of bankruptcy laws would be far stricter and prevent those types of abuses. I am unable to philosophically defend my viewpoint here. I am basing it on observations and recollections of financial practices of people and corporations. But I agree with Kendall that the key concept is "contract". Analysis of that concept will determine whether I am correct or a view such as David's is correct. A contract is an obligation that arises out of trade, where each party is rationally pursuing his self-interest. "Trade", "rational pursuit" and "self-interest" are also important concepts that are necessary to understand this issue.

The Wikipedia article on contracts Kendall cites in Post #16 above is very interesting. If I knew law was this interesting, I might have become a lawyer.

The law cannot state in advance all forms of how one man can hurt another or his property. New situations arise because of new technologies, customs, etc. For example, before the advent of stereo equipment, it was impossible to blast your neighbor with loud rap music. Once that became possible, the aggrieved party simply has to establish in a court of law that he was harmed in some way, and request appropriate redress. The important thing is that the law objectively define the meaning of harm as a principle, so that it can encompass new situations not currently specified in specific statutes. As to whether harms through noise or smells, etc., are not objective, they are. It is objectively true that noise beyond a certain level or smells of a certain kind and persistence are objectively a nuisance that prevents one from enjoying one's person and property. The job of the legislature through statute and/or the courts through specific cases resolving lawsuits, is to decide what those specific thresholds are. A lot of those thresholds may be highly specific to the circumstances involved, and are only definable for specific cases. The body of those cases forms precedent which helps inform and guide future judges in future lawsuits. That is what I was trying to get at by saying "common law," which I obviously know little about. Nevertheless, the principle of that form of adjudication is a sound one, for the simple reason that not every harm can be defined in advance. Regarding the objectivity of harming a neighbor in seemingly nebulous areas such as smells or noise, setting such standards is no less rational than setting the appropriate penalty for a crime. That a thief should be punished is an objective truth. Whether he should get 10 years in jail or 15 years in jail is to be decided by the legislature. Both sentences are appropriate. Within a certain range, either sentence is objectively valid. If I am a homeowner and on rare occasions on a Sunday afternoon I use my chainsaw to cut wood for the shed I am building in my backyard, I am not harming my neighbor, at least to a level where he can take legal action against me. On the other hand, if, in my residential neighborhood, I install a high-speed, industrial saw and use it to 24/7 rip-saw truckloads of timber I regularly ship to my backyard, that is a problem! I do not think it is subjective for courts to resolve such disputes through specific lawsuits that rely on judicial precedent, or the legislature through statute to set practical limits in matters such as these.

I am not going to comment on the oh-so-many aspects of Trump's personality. I will just say this. He is a great builder. His buildings dot Manhattan, and have made it greater. He built the two tallest residential buildings in Manhattan. He would have built the world's tallest building on Columbus Circle, if the politicians had let him. When he said he would do it, he meant it, and he would have. From my observation, his buildings are built to the highest standards. For example, all of his residential buildings have central air conditioning, which is still installed in a minority of new buildings here. Most new buildings still put in window or wall air conditioners, which are noisy and less efficient. Donald Trump also knows how to get things done, in a city that famously stifles entrepreneurship. He built the buildings I mention and others, such as Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, despite being hated by many populist politicians in the city. I can still remember how much he was hated by nearly every politician in the city for re-building the skating rink in Central Park in the 1980s. He got it done in a few months, when the city had been putzing around for 6 years and failed miserably. He had to completely rip out their mess in order to re-build it. I don't want to defend Trump's other activities or statements, but I will admire him for his buildings.

Spano, what about force majeure? Is that a valid concept, consistent with Objectivism? Or, how about statutory limits on employment contracts? Can someone sign a contract to make himself a lifetime slave to another person? Can someone take on a debt that can never be extinguished under any circumstances for the rest of his life? These questions point to a more fundamental issue relating to "contract." What is a contract? Which obligations are morally enforceable, and under what circumstances? What is the context that governs the enforceability of contracts? I can ask these questions, but I cannot readily answer them. They appear to lie in the area of the philosophy of law. Philosophy of law would bridge the philosophy of Objectivism with the law and help answer these questions.

All of these issues are dealt with by statute or by the common law. The common law is quite an incredible body of case law that is the result of courts deciding thousands of issues like this going all the way back to the days of the Roman Empire. (If there is a lawyer reading this, please correct me if I am wrong here.) Courts and legislatures will continue to decide these disputes as they arise in the future. Trust me, whatever infringements that exist today, new ones will arise in the future as technology advances, new forms of property are delineated, and people simply crowd each other more. "Zoning laws" are a completely inappropriate and unnecessary way of handling these types of matters. It is my understanding that America essentially had no zoning laws until the 20th century, when the first one was passed here in New York City. The impetus for it was the construction of the "colossal" Equitable Building on lower Broadway. Today, if you pass by that building, you will see buildings much larger than it on nearby blocks (including until 2001, the World Trade Center, which was about 3 blocks away). Yesterday's colossus blocking out the light and air is just today's moderately large building. Of course, that didn't stop the city for several decades from forcing new buildings going up to have an ugly, squat, pancaked shape, until the zoning rules were loosened. Houston is a city without zoning laws, or they may have passed some modest first ones just a few years ago. Go to Houston; it is a great, vibrant city. The problem with zoning laws is that it is a blunt instrument that violates the rights of people to use their property the way they want to. It punishes property owners a priori, before any violation has occurred. Common law and statutory law that is adjudged to be constitutional (i.e., does not violate property rights) can adjudicate those situations that arise where one person's actions truly violates the property rights of another. Those situations cannot be enumerated beforehand by zoning sections of a city for this use or that use. Such a power to tell property owners what they can do with their property can only be used to abuse in the manner I described. That it happens to occasionally protect some property owners today is a rare and accidental benefit of zoning laws, but it does not mean we should have them. The power to zone is the power to abuse the rights of property owners.

I only skimmed the entries in this thread, so I apologize in advance if I have misconstrued the argument (I will take no offense if you let me know), but I did want to throw my "two cents" in on this issue. It is important to carefully distinguish what is right in a mixed economy like ours. Government both acts as protector of our rights, to a degree, and as violator of our rights, to a degree. Zoning is an example of that. Zoning is a "package deal" ordinance. On the legitimate side, it can occasionally function as a protector of property rights, to the degree it forbids actions that violate one's property right. For example, if it outlaws a smelly hog farm in a residential area, it is protecting rights. The smells from the hog farm would violate a homeowner's right to peaceably use and enjoy his property. The interesting thing, though, is that it is completely unnecessary to use zoning laws for such a fundamental protection of rights. A correctly framed constitutional & statutory definition and protection of the right to property, combined with access to the court system to resolve torts, will take care of property rights infringements. Zoning laws are completely unnecessary for this purpose. This brings me to the second use, the true use of zoning: protecting incumbent property owners from encroachment by new property owners. This use of zoning occurs every day. Where I live in New York City, a zoning ordinance is passed to protect some councilman's views of the Empire State Building from his apartment window. To "protect" "his" view, property owners are forbidden from constructing buildings above a certain height. In suburban and rural areas around the country, zoning laws are similarly used as a weapon against future neighbors. For example, in parts of Westchester County, New York, minimum housing lot sizes are set at two acres. This ensures that only the very wealthy can afford to buy homes in that neighborhood. The law keeps out the "riff raff" and ensures that only the "right kind" of people move into the neighborhood. Because rational statutes and the courts can address true violations of property rights, there is no legitimate basis whatsoever for zoning laws in my opinion. All of them should be repealed. However, in today's mixed economy, zoning laws sometimes are used to protect legitimate property interests. If that is the case, I see no problem with invoking that law to protect one's property, if that is the only legal recourse available to an individual. However, I would never confuse using a zoning law in this (limited) manner with somehow concluding that zoning laws are moral. They are not. If government has failed to protect your property right through legitimate means, you use the means available to you to accomplish your goal. But it does not follow that one should advocate zoning restrictions. Rather, one should oppose them, and advocate a laissez faire society. On this last point, consider circumstances where it is moral to accept money from the government. Such circumstances are inevitable and unavoidable for most people in a mixed economy. But, does accepting government money in those circumstances make one into an advocate of a mixed or socialist economy? Of course not. One can keep the taking and the talking separate, and not be a hypocrite.

Well, I don't have the wisdom of an 80 year old. I have about half that wisdom. :-) I don't think I have the wisdom to proceed, either...

I have to disagree with DavidOdden. Again, I defer to the legal scholars (or philosophical experts) out there for a better formulation of the reasons, but bankruptcy laws must be allowed. No person has omniscience with regard to the future course of his life. He cannot be held responsible beyond a certain point if he finds himself unable to pay his debt. Imagine a person whose business fails. He borrowed to establish it, researched the markets, and conducted all manner of full, rational due diligence before starting it. But an unexpected technological innovation from a competitor, or the death of a key employee or, perhaps, theft from a dishonest employee, causes him to shut down his business. This happens all the time. No businessman can foresee every possible contingency when he starts his business. Is he to have no discharge from his debts? Actually, the corporate legal structure codifies bankruptcy in a way where the business assets can be liquidated to pay off the debts, but any unpaid debts are extinguished with the business. The owner's personal assets are protected. This is already codified into law, and is the codification of voluntarily agreed on terms between the lender and the owner of the corporation. However, the same mechanism must exist for personal debts, for similar reasons. No one can foresee all the contingencies of life, even if he buys the best insurance protection. How about a business started with personal funds, and the business collapses? Or, how about someone who, through injury, can no longer work? If people were held to debts forever, their failure in paying their debt would become a permanent weight around their neck, one they may never be able to escape from. I am not sure of the exact legal principle here, but it seems similar to force majeure. Force majeure is an event that is so extraordinary that a contract cannnot be fulfilled. If someone cannot fulfill his contract because of extraordinary events such as lightning strikes, war, etc., the law acknowledges his inability to fulfill his contract and holds him under no obligation to do so. Bankruptcy is not an easy thing. It carries with it shame and a long black mark on one's credit records. That black mark will make it very difficult for the bankrupt to borrow again. If there were no bankruptcy provision in the law, I suspect that banks would begin offering it voluntarily as a condition on their loan contracts. The reason is simple. I doubt many people would want to borrow if it meant permanent, lifetime liability, regardless of one's personal circumstances. Although bankruptcy most likely would be offered as a part of any standard debt contract, it also seems that a legal mechanism for bankruptcy must exist, even if it is not part of a contract. An analogous area of law is employment law. Can someone voluntarily make themselves a slave? Certainly not. Can someone voluntarily take on a debt that can never be discharged for the rest of the borrower's life, even if the borrower's circumstances prevent him from repaying it? It doesn't seem right for the same reason.

Yes, and President Roosevelt was also just enforcing the immigration laws: That's a red herring argument if I've ever seen one. Were those in the above ship "diseased, criminal-minded..."? Were you, your parents or your wife? No one is against keeping out criminals. That is not the purpose of today's immigration laws. You don't have the right to tell other property owners what they can do with their property. Any "agreement" between the town and you over someone else's right to property is invalid. If you want to control what they do with their property, buy it. Your position is contrary to the right to property, an essential tenet of Objectivism. You are not an Objectivist. That is not meant as ad hominem, but a simple statement of fact. Why don't you acknowledge that? Instead, you want to have your cake and eat it too, by claiming that you are an Objectivist, while denying essential elements of the philosophy. All so that you can live on your mountaintop? It's time to climb down from the mountain, brother. That is a non-argument, both from intimidation (as someone points out above) and ad hominem. Do you see that? Perhaps that is acceptable to you.

In all seriousness, I bet Karl Rove is figuring out how to "play" the environmentalism angle. That man defines pragmatism. We got an early taste of it in the Bush administration when he persuaded Bush to enact tariffs on steel imports. Then we got the big whammy with the prescription drug program. If Bush were up for re-election again, he would have him do an "Arnold" and come out big-time in favor of restrictions on greenhouse gases.

After The Fountainhead, read Atlas Shrugged. It has the most economics in it (and much, much more!).