Yep, it’s TreeHugger time again – the place where environmentalism meets socialism. The thing there is that while they approach most everything from an enviro standpoint, the socialism part isn’t even scab deep – there’s hardly anything to yank to prove that these folks are Watermelons (a layer of green on the outside but LOTS of red on the inside). Today’s lesson on how to recognize such creatures comes from the comments at a post labeled “Fight back against the online onslaught, and support Small Business Saturday“; four pull quotes to show you the “rack’em and stack’em” mindset (emphasis mine) and the real reason for it:
- “Dense, walkable, resilient towns and cities are a key component of getting off oil, and viable main street retail is the key to having vibrant main streets.”
- Urbanism is, in fact, our single most potent weapon against climate change, rising energy costs, and environmental degradation.
- There is a direct relationship between the kinds of places we live, the transportation choices we have, and how much we drive. The best car-related innovation we have is not to improve the car, but eliminate the need to drive it everywhere we go.
- Key to eliminating the need to drive is giving people places to go that are pleasant and walkable and fun. That’s what small businesses can provide. That’s where the innovation is, that’s where the good beer is, that’s where you can get things fixed instead of having to buy new. That’s why people want to live in cities instead of suburbs. And for these places to survive, we all have to support them.
I thought it rather amusing that these quotes are showing a bit of desperation in that the urban model isn’t working and that they have to “prop” it up. And yes, if Lloyd was Despot for a Day, that’s where we’d all end up – in some squalid, smelly, Democrat run city in a tiny apartment dependent on Govt for transportation. And with Millennials now starting to form families, they’re heading out to the ‘burbs against his greatest hopes and beliefs.
I was rather surprised that in the comments there was a fair amount of pushback on “buy local/small” bit; many made the point that shopping is about the triplet of price, service, and convenience which are often not found in the “local” shops. And then one commenter went full Socialist / Communist about how to “fix” long term vacant shops. I’m just going to paste in that thread with a little bit of emphasis.
I’d be curious as to what you all think about the commenter’s emphasis that “Community trumps an Individual’s Right to Private Property”? And what other arguments I SHOULD have thought about in the exchange. And what you think of “164858”‘s debating points as well. Let me know in OUR comments!
Part 1: Govt should take empty storefront property away from the owners
164858: All across America you find small towns that are drying up. Yet you have many, many store fronts. It would seem to me that under imminent domain the city could take these places and let people open stores at zero rent. All these places are doing is sitting idle and rotting away.
GraniteGrok: With your outlook on the Right to Private Property, eminent domain would certainly be imminent, wouldn’t it?
164858: Empty stores that are falling apart. How does that help a community?
GraniteGrok:
The owners took a risk by investing in and owning that property. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose in capitalism. That said, it is THEIR property – it is NOT your’s.
“How does that help a community?”
It may not. That said, If you think you can do better (or anyone else, for that matter) buy it yourself and then rent it out for $0. Or anyone else. And if you think that Govt, especially at the economic illiterate price of $0 rent / month, is going to create a vibrant environment in the long term with that, then you haven’t bumped up against the Law of Unintended Consequences.
164858: If it is unrentable then take it down. Better to have a green area than a rat infested, decaying building, which adds nothing to the community.
GraniteGrok: You’re reinforcing that you have no regard for other peoples’ Private Property
164858: Your logic is saying that if you have a big section of a city that is rat infested that its ok to leave it alone, its private property. Yet in the same breath you don’t demand that the owners clean it up. Make these demands and you will see them dumping this property on the taxpayers in a heart beat.
GraniteGrok:
Happens all the time – what do you think happens when local govt does a “taking” (of a kind) by instituting rent control? You have just made a hash of the economic value of the property by limiting its ROI to the owner. Why would the owner continue to put money into a property that they’d never see again? It has happened in city after city.Or the property owner goes condo and gets out of the market completely rather than having to deal with fools that believe his property is their property too. That’s what happens when you take the idea of “community” too far – it creates very grabby hands.
Part 2:
Wombling Wombat: So you want the Govt. to take private property and give it to the people for no money? All you are missing is the govt. taking 90% of the money people earned for this plan to be true socialism.
164858: If you visit small towns across America you will find that these buildings are nothing but a fire trap. Sooner or later problems will occur.
GraniteGrok:
So your story is that if the private property owners don’t do what you want (or can’t), government should, as Wombling Wombat said, just take their property from them and give it to somebody else?
Or make it a govt building?
The message that kind of action sends to others is “DON’T INVEST HERE!”. Why would anyone else do that knowing that if someone, like yourself, doesn’t like the outcome, would start pushing to take away their investment?
164858: Ever live in an area with an HOA. Then you will realize that yes, they can foreclose on your property if you get enough fines.
GraniteGrok:
Oh – this too. You didn’t respond to the Unintended Consequences of sending the message of “never invest here (where we take your property if you aren’t using it the way we want you to) ever again”.
If you take those properties away, how would you ever persuade anyone else that it would be economically viable to put their money into your town/city?
GraniteGrok:
But you CHOSE to purchase a house within an HOA that has such clauses. Solution?Don’t buy there. Don’t even put yourself at risk. After all, it’s a voluntary decision.
You, however, made your original grab using Government as your “agent. And those buildings you want to take away from the owners aren’t even your’s!
Oh, that makes YOU the HOA you so dislike.
164858:
Didn’t we take property from the Native Americans with the idea that we could improve it? Didn’t Israel do the same thing with the Palestinians? So yes.GraniteGrok:
Oh please, you’re reaching. That isn’t even close to an “apples to oranges” – that a “cement block to supernova” one (e.g., think irrelevant). You just tried a reach and fell into “Silly Debate Gulch”.
I thought that the commenter’s last retort was classic – “I can’t win (or even compete cogently) so start throwing deflections up (e.g., see what sticks to the wall)”. Call them out on it, make them come back on topic. Really, that we took Indian lands is the same for govt taking private property simply on YOUR say-so?
Just another example of how the Left tries to argue. Which is the point of this post.
