Source link: http://archive.mises.org/18247/statist-destruction-behind-schumpeters-creative-back/
Schumpeter’s Creative Reconstruction Destroyed By The State
Previous post: The Ethics of Liberty in ePub
Next post: Undergraduate paper on the Austrian Business Cycle Theory
{ 17 comments }
Ah, of course there are “issues”.
Am sure this was a wise use of resources to destroy this.
Caltran just wanted money from people to keep it, sounds like. They obviously don’t feel they answer to the taxpayers…
The State was asking for $5,000 per month to lease a spot under an overpass? What do they think this is, Zug, Switzerland?
And I like the guy they got to “explain” why it was being torn down. He had no clue, he was just ordered to do it.
I’ve been to Zug. $5000 gets you a broom cupboard. That was a sizeable piece of land under that overpass. You could build half of Industriestasse under it.
It’s also in Oakland, which is more like the Baghdad or Kabul of the USA. $5,000/month for an empty plot of land would basically be most of the city, not a noisy concrete lot beneath a highway.
Eh? Caltrans were willing to lease it to the skating boarding guy for $5000 a month. They have another tenant lined up who want to put up billboards. I don’t see the problem here. Land is scarce, and just because the skateboarder mixed his labour with it (nice but of Marxist terminology there), it does not make it his. Same with any land – it has a owner, who gets to do as he likes with it.
It is about marginal utility. When the land was underused and unguarded, the skaterboarder was able to make use of it, so long as he didn’t have to pay. Now an entrepreneur who can pay more and make more profitable use if the land has come along, and the next down marginal use stops. Good.
Especially because so many underpasses in the city have billboards on them… get real you saw the location it was nothing close to being a widely seen space. Just the state flexing it’s bicep.
Just the rightful owner of the property executing its property rights. You against it? Are a communist or what?
Governments aren’t rightful owners of anything.
Evey Hammond: Where did you get all this stuff?
V: Oh, here and there, mostly from the Ministry of Objectionable Materials.
Evey Hammond: You stole them?
V: Oh, heavens, no. Stealing implies ownership. You can’t steal from the censor; I merely reclaimed them.
Evey Hammond: God, if they ever find this place…
Looks like they found that place.
And a skateboard park couldn’t possibly exist in the presence of a few more pillars supporting some billboards? No, this was strictly a power play. So much for the fiction of “public” ownership.
Since when is mixing one’s labor with something Marxist terminology? Hell, almost every private property defender in the Austrian tradition defines it that way.
[sigh, let's try this again]
Issues?? there are issues, so we need to spend money to destroy this??
And I liked how it seemed that if CalTran was paid off, they wouldn’t destroy it.
Who do these people work for, anyway?? Obviously not the taxpayers…
My favorite part is that Caltrans wants to remove the skateboard park because there may be homeless people there who may commit crimes. I am sure the lack of skateboarders will definitely make the area less appealing to homeless folks and criminals.
PEOPLE WORKING.
That’s what I see when I watch this video. Clearly, many, many more people could be put to work building and destroying skateboard parks across our great nation. Especially if you take away their machines.
In fact, others could be breaking and fixing those machines while the skateboard park builder/destroyers do their thing.
Obviously what is needed is to make the entire United States one huge skateboard park in case any space aliens want to land here to skateboard.
I’ll run this by Paul Krugman. Think he’ll like the idea?
Really make people happy! I like! http://pp.vg/84447
This issue begs the question. Exactly what rights do we have to property?
If you look at it from the Tragedy of the Commons, we can state that the skateboarders got there first and utilized the land to the exclusion of others.
If you look at it from the concept of homesteading, the land was not utilized and the skateboarders made it their own by making improvements on the land.
It seems to me the skateboarders are perfectly within their rights to lay claim to the land regardless of who owns it.
Comments on this entry are closed.