Take Back NYU!

The name implies that members of this group believe they were in possession of this school at some point ... subsequently dispossessed ... and they now want it back!

Who exactly are they wanting to take it back from? Moreover, why are they paying $37,000 a year in undergraduate tuition to people who they believe are thieves? How did these kids become such asinine retards?

The students who led this pathetic theatrical event (that's all it was and in some ways I am glad the administration treated it as such) have strange theories on force, "occupation," and property. A quote from their website:

Uncompromising, our power is growing.  What has started as a singular strike against the structure of NYU's form of domination will become a strike against the general logic of domination.

When we occupy spaces and liberate their use, we appropriate for ourselves the means of our very existence.  We find each other here and now, in the midst of conflict and crisis, overturning every role we're given, annulling every attempt to reconcile.

"Our power is growing?" First of all, no its not.  Secondly, did you not just say in the same paragraph that you are striking against domination? Do you understand what the word power entails - namely the ability to force others to do without free will?  Take for instance violently "occupying" a private university's cafeteria without their consent and "appropriating" what others own through domination thereby forcing them to give against their will.

Hobbes claimed that property was simply that which you could keep from all others by force (I'm paraphrasing).  Right or wrong did not really enter into the picture. A sandwich you "own" at this moment will just as soon be mine after I hit you in the face, swipe it and put it in my belly. Who really owns the sandwich? Me, cause I won the fight.

Locke agreed with Hobbes on these essentials.  He labeled his predecessor's theory the "state of nature." Since the dawn of time, smart men have been trying to get out of this state. In fact, I spend most of my day reading the millions of words these men have written down in that very attempt to get us out.  But law presupposes an ultimate arbiter and monopoly of force in The State. Without such a monopoly, the law would be dead letters and powerless sentences.  Having all these laws does not mean that the state of nature has disappeared. This is a well known fact to the sovereign and its citizens; as evidenced by the continual funding and enlistment of United States Armed Forces Personnel who are ready and willing to whip the shit out of anyone who would try and drag us backwards into such a state by not obeying the monopolist.  

In the context of private property, the law has made who it deems the "owner" the ultimate source of power within the property's limits. So if a prowler comes onto your land, you get to use force to expel him. If the state is needed because you lack the requisite ability, call 911 and they'll back you up. 

Take Back NYU are the type of people who would drag us back into the state of nature. It won't be their actions that get us there (they are pathetic pussies who no one should physically fear). Their mindset is what is concerning. They have no understanding of how law and property work, or, more importantly, why it should. But what if they get hold of the mechanisms of the state and rescind the feudalistic property rights that have been given to the various owners? These idiots obviously don't see anything wrong with what they did, and view NYU as fascist assholes for doing the same exact thing with legitimate state power behind them. Obviously, their politics should view property rights with some hostility, as these guarantees are the reason that Macbooks and doughnut holes failed to keep the administration, who were armed with police, at bay.

Watching this video containing the final moments of this pathetic "occupation" almost made me ill. The sheer lack of understanding and reality of the situation they had put themselves into was astounding.  They were actually (in high whiny voices) telling the security guards of the university "hey, we didn't say you could come in here" and "we're using the democratic process here, I don't know if you guys know what that is" and "do not use brutality ... do not use force you are on camera" etc.

These kids, by usurping the rightful monopoly of force given to NYU over their property, had thrown themselves into Hobbesian land ... with the state of nature being a big, tired and pissed of looking police officer rampaging through the "barricade" of chairs and desks the students had set up the night before.  Did they really think asking him to stop would make him stop? Could they not remember just 24 hours earlier to a moment when they took the very same space by force in the face of pleas by the administration not to? Sorry idiots, you better turn your "free Tibet" flag upside down and start swinging cause this here's a fight.

They are lucky NYU is such a liberal university. No one was even arrested and they probably won't even be expelled. No one was hurt - except maybe some feelings. This is a shame. NYU should have taken the opportunity to teach them what usually happens to people who break the law. I'm going to go occupy the liquor store down the street and see if they let me off with a suspension. 

Here's an idea: if you don't like how NYU is spending its endowment, stop contributing to it and go somewhere else.

More on this story from Acre of Independence and The Cigarette Smoking Blog

Here are some more videos:

She Makes It Look Better

Thought This Was Worth Posting

Cutting Taxes is not "Spending"

I was browsing the Times today in an attempt to see how they were covering the stimulus fiasco. I was surprised that nowhere on the front page was there even a mention of the fact that we are about to burden ourselves with a trillion dollars in new debt. There was however a link to Paul Krugman's op-ed on the stimulus which contained his commentary on Rebublican concerns over the lack of tax cuts versus actual spending in the bill. He also went on at lengths on how the new law created too many tax cuts and not nearly enough spending.

He was quite defensive concerning the attacks coming from the right over the cost of all this stimulation:

... [I]t's now clear that the party's commitment to deep voodoo ... is as strong as ever In both the House and the Senate, the vast majority of Republicans rallied behind the idea that the appropriate response to the abject failure of the Bush administration's tax cuts is more Bush-style tax cuts.

And the rhetorical response of conservatives to the stimulus plan - which will, it's worth bearing in mind, cost substantially less than either the Bush administration's $2 trillion in tax cuts or the $1 trillion and counting spent in Iraq - has bordered on the deranged.

"It's destroying my daughter's future.  It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs," said Arnold Kling of the Cato Institute.

First of all, I guess I need to see a shrink for so called "derangement" because I also thing this type of deficit spending is nothing more than punching our unborn babies in the face with an up-turned palm extended. Secondly, "cost" is a substantially relative term in this situation. If you are like Krugman, you will see tax cuts as a "cost" to government. If your skin is not the shade of pink ... you might see spending more than what tax revenue there is as the actual "cost" to government.

The idea of private individuals must be foreign to the esteemed laureate.  Cutting taxes is "spending" to him and raising taxes is "saving."  If John Doe makes $100 a day and is taxed 40% on every dollar, Krugman would view such a situation as Congress "spending" $60 on one of its citizens.  I'm sure not even Krugman would think that the tax rates should be 80% or higher, but the reasoning behind this is different from why you or I would think the same.  The view of these types is that the government should allow its citizens to have some of the fruits of their labor for policy orientated reasons ... but only as much as they need.  

And in reality ... what is the main difference between tax cuts in the stimulus v. spending.  One thing mainly: who gets to spend the money.  Pumping $1 trillion into the economy by government spending is no different than simply not taking $1 trillion out in the first place.  But then who gets to decide where the money is spent?  Not Pelosi or Obama, but individuals like you and I.

At Least Give Us Our Existing Use

Class: Land Use and Regulation

Professor: Serkin

Topic: Existing Use Exception to Regulatory Takings

Word to the wise: if you think that government regulation of your land is inherently evil or unconstitutional ... don't take a course on "land use and regulation." You will be surprised to find out that the preceding belief is not taken seriously or even debated within the first week. It's a given that private property is created and maintained by the government and you (the wretch that you are) are blessed that "they" let you do anything with it.

The first week of this class was given to review of the regulatory takings doctrine which basically allows a city council to tell you what you can't do with your land without having to pay for the benefit of the restriction. Penn Central is the hallmark of the case law at the moment with some insurgency via Scalia in Lucas. I'm going to save my bitching about zoning for a later date ... but, if your interested, read those two cases and you'll have the gist of the situation.

What I do want to discuss is the Existing Use Doctrine. Every lay lawyer has heard of the idea called "grandfathering." Basically, if a law is passed by way of the police power of the state which restricts your current use or activity, you generally get the benefit of not having to conform like all the other suckers who were putting off the same action for whatever reason. So if Loganville, GA decides to rezone the area surrounding a Walmart from commercial to residential, Walmart gets to continue its activities until they decide to cease and desist - at which time the land will be restricted to dwellings. The guy owning five acres next to Walmart with a single residence who was waiting for the property value to go up in his commercial zone before developing is screwed. The down-zoning destroys the value of his land, and he cries himself to sleep knowing he made a bad bet of waiting too long. Again ... the obvious complaint in this situation is with zoning itself; but one thing at a time.

Non-conforming existing use is generally protected much more than what I will call "future use." So, for the most part, if your property gets down-zoned from industrial to residential, the present use of your land, a factory for instance, would be given much more protection than say a future plan that you had to build a similar factory - grandfathering in action. If the government wanted to stop your current use, it would have to compensate you. If it wanted to prevent your future use, all it would have to do is down-zone before you built the factory itself.

But this protection is under attack with my professor leading the charge. His general premise, interestingly, is one that I agree with. Having read his journal submission beta (he was nice enough to be self depreciating in assigning it - so the vanity complaint is struck) I gather that he believes that there is no difference between existing use and future use. Fine enough, except for what he proposes this entails: namely that existing use protection should be limited to the Penn Central type analysis - meaning that the government should be able to tell you to demolish your factory at the event of down-zoning.

God bless the kid in the blue shirt one row ahead. He led the charge with the obvious counterattack stating that the opposite assumption could be given equal weight. If future use and existing use are one in the same, why not apply the protection for existing use to future use. That way the government must compensate you for any diminution in value your property receives whether it be future (within reason), or existing. My classmate's main argument was that there was a strong intuitive impulse that would work against allowing a government to, say, force you to demolish your dwelling because it wanted a twenty foot set back instead of ten. What is the real difference between a land owner who has a house that is non conforming and a landowner who wants to build a house that is also non conforming? My answer: not much.

An illustration: In Smith, a woman inherited her father's mobile home which had only been allowed to stay outside of a "mobile home park" because of a grandfathering provision in the recent restriction on mobile homes in the county. When title transferred to the daughter by way of will, the city maintained that the existing use ceased with said transfer. At this point the daughter had to go to court or simply remove the trailer from the land. She went to court and lost the existing use (boon for the trailer park lessors). What is the difference between her father and someone who has some land and wants to put a trailer on it but cant because he didn't get the memo from the county telling him he better act now? The harm is similar. The difference between where this evaluation takes you is important however. Should the protection given to existing use extend to future use or the other way around? Should someone who owns a piece of commercially zoned property who is waiting to build a strip mall, for whatever reason, be as protected as someone who already has? Or is there a distinction?

The real point (don't take me too seriously) is that the minute you allow a city council who just finished their spaghetti dinner at the local VFW to bang a gavel and tell you what you can and can't build on your property (excluding real harm prevention like nuisance) is the minute this country goes to hell. In some states this is the case ... but in many, the existing use exception still maintains a bulwark ... build fast.

Getting Over the Laziness

Well, the holidays are long past and week four of the new semester is upon me, so I thought it was about time to light up the old libertarian rant machine.  My course load is much lighter this semester which may be a double edged sword as far as the blog is concerned.  For one, I might have less material due to the lack of exposure to jibber jabber between myself and the so called 'enemy' (with respect as always).  But I also may have more time to sit around and ponder the few debates which do arise and write more thought out arguments from my perspective.

All that being said, the three classes I am attending (Land Use and Regulation, Employment Discrimination, and War and the Presidency) all seem to have the potential to create fruitful blogging.  If my courses don't provide the goods though, I can always fall back on the NYC government for a whipping boy.  Bloomberg's third term has already proved inspirational to my ire ... more on that soon.

 

Laziness