• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How much more would you pay for laissez faire property?

How much more would you pay for laissez faire property?

  • Up to 20% more.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 30% more.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 40% more.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 50% more.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 60% more.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 80% more.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 100% more (double).

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Over 100% more (specify amount).

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    5

ronpaulvoter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
627
Reaction score
111
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Some of us already know that all levels of government are imposing more and more restrictions, mandates and fees onto people's private property.

When America was founded, a person could do just abouit anything he wanted with his own property, and officials would leave him alone.

Now there are numerous and increasing abuses. A couple of extreme examples are $1000 for a mandated percolation test and $65 for a permit to replace a water heater.

Let's assume you have a choice of two otherwise identical pieces of property onto which you wish to build a new home. One has the current excessive regulations; the other has essentially none, like in the old days, and the assurance that it would remain that way.

Assuming you have enough money to do so, how much more would you be willing to pay for the unregulated property, percentage wise?
 
Other: Less.

The reduced level of bureaucratic effort needed for unregulated property should reduce my overall cost.
 
I think the more appropriate question is "how much less would you pay for property next door to someone with laissez faire property?"
 
I think the more appropriate question is "how much less would you pay for property next door to someone with laissez faire property?"

Depends on what that person does with the property. I might well be willing to pay more depending on what it was. That's kinda how property values work. :)
 
Yeh,

The answer is that I would pay much less. Maybe my neighbor to the back of me only wants to raise 4 pigs this year but maybe he will be decide to raise 400 next year.

My neighbor to the south has not updated his septic system for years. We drilled a new well further away from his place.

My neighbor to the north is a fisherman and his wife is a crab picker. Their compost is plenty fragrant!

Oh yeh, I forgot to mention that I live in Maine where zoning is almost nonexistent and I bought my little farm for next to nothing.
 
I think there is a "happy medium" in there, likely different for each area.

Too many restrictions lower property value, and too few restrictions lower property value.
 
I think there is a "happy medium" in there, likely different for each area.

Too many restrictions lower property value, and too few restrictions lower property value.

We moved to Maine because it is has a laissez faire attitude about property rights AND low prices.

But I think you will find that your average investment banker will choose Martha's Vineyard for his/her real estate choice They don't really object to the fact that the neighborhood zoning laws do not allow people to hang their laundry on a line or park their boat in the driveway or paint their house a color other than the half dozen approved heritage colors....and GOD FORBID that a neighbor throw a mobile home next to yours!! or, or, a walking path that might attract rif raf..OR, hang Christmas lights which are not a tasteful white., or keep farm animals, or have a home based business.... etc. etc.

It is hilarious that anyone would imagine that restrictions and zoning are anything but an elitist impulse to exclude undesirables- Like any country club, it makes property values much higher, certainly not lower. The real estate maxim- for those of you who are unfamiliar with it- purchase the worst dump in the best neighborhood. Location, Location. Its everything.

I should probably be payed for this free advice.
 
We moved to Maine because it is has a laissez faire attitude about property rights AND low prices.

But I think you will find that your average investment banker will choose Martha's Vineyard for his/her real estate choice They don't really object to the fact that the neighborhood zoning laws do not allow people to hang their laundry on a line or park their boat in the driveway or paint their house a color other than the half dozen approved heritage colors....and GOD FORBID that a neighbor throw a mobile home next to yours!! or, or, a walking path that might attract rif raf..OR, hang Christmas lights which are not a tasteful white., or keep farm animals, or have a home based business.... etc. etc.

It is hilarious that anyone would imagine that restrictions and zoning are anything but an elitist impulse to exclude undesirables- Like any country club, it makes property values much higher, certainly not lower. The real estate maxim- for those of you who are unfamiliar with it- purchase the worst dump in the best neighborhood. Location, Location. Its everything.

I should probably be payed for this free advice.

Perhaps.

Indeed, "elitist impulse to exclude undesirables" is a very accurate discription.

I was thinking more along the lines of "reasonable" restrictions.

An obviously messy neighborhood demands lower property values.

I would prefer a neighborhood that restricts the worst while allowing everything else. Although I currently live in one with very few, if any, restrictions
 
But I think you will find that your average investment banker will choose Martha's Vineyard for his/her real estate choice They don't really object to the fact that the neighborhood zoning laws do not allow people to hang their laundry on a line or park their boat in the driveway or paint their house a color other than the half dozen approved heritage colors....and GOD FORBID that a neighbor throw a mobile home next to yours!! or, or, a walking path that might attract rif raf..OR, hang Christmas lights which are not a tasteful white., or keep farm animals, or have a home based business.... etc. etc.

Of course.

What about this is a surprise to anyone? If I have a nice house, I don't want rednecks or ghetto blasters living next door to me.
 
I think the more appropriate question is "how much less would you pay for property next door to someone with laissez faire property?"
Next time I buy property, I'm looking for something that is next door to nobody. A good neighbor is one at shouting distance and no closer.
 
Some of us already know that all levels of government are imposing more and more restrictions, mandates and fees onto people's private property.

When America was founded, a person could do just abouit anything he wanted with his own property, and officials would leave him alone.

Now there are numerous and increasing abuses. A couple of extreme examples are $1000 for a mandated percolation test and $65 for a permit to replace a water heater.

Let's assume you have a choice of two otherwise identical pieces of property onto which you wish to build a new home. One has the current excessive regulations; the other has essentially none, like in the old days, and the assurance that it would remain that way.

Assuming you have enough money to do so, how much more would you be willing to pay for the unregulated property, percentage wise?

I'd pay whatever they were asking as long as I liked it and could afford it.

People are funny with property and regulations, they think government should exist to protect their investment.
 
Perhaps.

Indeed, "elitist impulse to exclude undesirables" is a very accurate discription.

I was thinking more along the lines of "reasonable" restrictions.

An obviously messy neighborhood demands lower property values.

I would prefer a neighborhood that restricts the worst while allowing everything else. Although I currently live in one with very few, if any, restrictions

I agree that there is or should be a reasonable standard. The original O.P. mentions perk tests. I.M.O., that is a reasonable restriction. Who, here, wants a neighbor whose septic system does not function because the property is too wet?

The irony, for those who favor small gov't and local control, is that like minded people will choose to vote in the restrictions and amenities that help to maintain a homogenous affluent community. It is certainly not a "liberal" or big gov't impulse. It is a tribal /wealth impulse.
 
In areas where properties are closer together, regulation is needed, especially in suburban centres. In rural areas, I don't see the problem with a more laissez faire approach.

The one thing I hate the most is neighbours who cut down big trees for their stupid gardening projects. I've filed complaints with the city many times to stop these people.
 
In areas where properties are closer together, regulation is needed, especially in suburban centres. In rural areas, I don't see the problem with a more laissez faire approach.

The one thing I hate the most is neighbours who cut down big trees for their stupid gardening projects. I've filed complaints with the city many times to stop these people.

why?

what's wrong with people gardening?
 
why?

what's wrong with people gardening?

Trees increase property value, even for the surrounding homes. They provide shade, attract beautiful wildlife, and just make the area look more beautiful. Everyone benefits.
 
Trees increase property value, even for the surrounding homes. They provide shade, attract beautiful wildlife, and just make the area look more beautiful. Everyone benefits.

Depends on where you live. Where I am at, trees are everywhere. You'd be hard pressed to have a property without any trees. Whenever I buy a house/property, whatever trees are standing in the way of a view of the southern sky, are coming down so I can get DirectTV/Dish Network for football games.
 
When America was founded, a person could do just abouit anything he wanted with his own property, and officials would leave him alone.

Hmm, could that be part of the problem? Yes.
 
I suppose it depends on what they intend to do on their property. Sometimes what you do on your property affects my property or my life. If you are going to open a pig farm on your property I won't pay a dime for the property next to you.
 

In all the Canadian big cities, you need to apply to the city to cut down big trees on your property, and I'm in favor of this rule. There are sometimes legitimate reasons, but growing a garden is not one of them. If you want to remove a precious wildlife resource from an area that already has few trees, you better plan to replace it with something just as valuable.
 
I wonder if cutting interlocking fire breaks across the entire forested land area would reduce the size of these fires?

In some dark office on the 36th floor of a featureless office building, a 4th year litigation associate who works on matters for Weyerhaeuser just had a brilliant idea. :lol:
 
I think the more appropriate question is "how much less would you pay for property next door to someone with laissez faire property?"

You mean, how much MORE would I pay?" That is, assuming that my own property was also laissez faire.

If he appreciated his property's value and sincerely upheld the live and let live doctrine, that neighbor would be a valuable asset and an enhancement to my own property's value. He would stand by me in future proposals to impose regulations.

On the other hand, if I had a neighbor who was a complainer about what other people did with their property, he would be a serious liability and a de-valuation of my property.


The answer is that I would pay much less. Maybe my neighbor to the back of me only wants to raise 4 pigs this year but maybe he will be decide to raise 400 next year.

My neighbor to the south has not updated his septic system for years. We drilled a new well further away from his place.

My neighbor to the north is a fisherman and his wife is a crab picker. Their compost is plenty fragrant!

Oh yeh, I forgot to mention that I live in Maine where zoning is almost nonexistent and I bought my little farm for next to nothing.

1. What are the odds of a neighbor raising 400 pigs? About a zillion to one?

2. How far was your old well from his septic system? Was it less than 100 feet? Did your old well get contaminated. Could you prove it was from his septic system?

3. How far is your neighbor's compost from your home? Is it "plenty fragrant" at your home, or is it only when next to it?

4. Zoning almost nonexistent? Great. Bought it for next to nothing? Also great. How many acres? You could probably sell it for a nice profit. If Maine winters weren't so harsh, I might even buy it myself.


We moved to Maine because it is has a laissez faire attitude about property rights AND low prices....

So you DO like laissez faire. Congratulations. I'm sure that enduring your neighbors' septic systems and compost is not nearly as undesirable as being molested by "swarms of officers" coming to harass you and "eat out your substance."


I was thinking more along the lines of "reasonable" restrictions.

I would prefer a neighborhood that restricts the worst while allowing everything else....

A lot of people fall for "reasonable." Unfortunately, you can't precisely define it in legal terms. It is the nature of government to overregulate and add to the misery. Let the camel stick his nose under your tent, and the next thing you see is him inside defacating all over your $500,000 Persian rug.


Next time I buy property, I'm looking for something that is next door to nobody. A good neighbor is one at shouting distance and no closer.

Good idea. That minimizes the danger of being next to a busybody.


...People are funny with property and regulations, they think government should exist to protect their investment.

I want to be protected from criminals and government intrusions.


I agree that there is or should be a reasonable standard....
The irony, for those who favor small gov't and local control, is that like minded people will choose to vote in the restrictions and amenities that help to maintain a homogenous affluent community. It is certainly not a "liberal" or big gov't impulse. It is a tribal /wealth impulse.

Again, the camel and the tent.

A person who is genuinely small government understands the importance of keeping it small and would strongly oppose incentives to make it bigger.

Of all things I can imagine devaluing property, government intrusions would be at the very top of the list.


In areas where properties are closer together, regulation is needed, especially in suburban centres. In rural areas, I don't see the problem with a more laissez faire approach....

That's my primary reason for choosing a rural area. Giving up conveniences is well worth it.


...Sometimes what you do on your property affects my property or my life. If you are going to open a pig farm on your property I won't pay a dime for the property next to you.

I believe in the sanctity of private property. You have your property. I have mine. You build and manage your home as you like. I do likewise.

Unless something I do physically intrudes (trespasses) onto
your property, you should not complain. If I let my sewage drain onto your property, you have a legitimate complaint. We already have laws against trespassing, even with unregulated property.

But nobody should complain about a person's home or property being unsightly or being different from his.

And why is everybody obsessed with pig farms? I'd be a lot more concerned about things put up by government--a prison, airport, or (heaven forbid) a public housing project.
 
If you have a large area of land with extremely low population densities, then you don't need a lot of regulations in terms of what property owners can and cannot do with their property.

Being we had less than 4 million people in the country at our founding, that was the case. Of course, just because there were no federal regulations on property usage at our founding, does not mean that many localities did not have rather onerous regulations.

We have some 300 million people in this country today. Our resource usage per-capita is much higher than it was 200 years ago. Unless we all want to live in an environmental hell hole, we have go to have environmental regulations on what you can and cannot do with your property. After all, essentially property is almost always a temporary holding for each generation. If we all just take a "take it, rape it, it's yours" view toward property, then we are not leaving much for future generations. At out founding, 4 million people could do just that, we can't do that today with 300 million people.
 
Back
Top Bottom