[brockm]

Your view is dogmatic because you oppose the method of regulation in itself. You are explicitly saying that we have no business regulating heritage buildings when developers want to steal them from us. As if the fact that we don't technically own them was more important than the fact they are beneficial.

What is my view, exactly? Also, do you even know what the word "dogmatic" means? Because if you do know what it means, and you're using it to accurately represent your thoughts, I'm starting to believe it's not possible for me to have a productive conversation with you. Ever.

You tried to prove that demolishing stuff would be beneficial by lowering prices, but in the case of Toronto your argument is incredibly weak. Having not provided any convincing evidence whatsoever you moved on to philosophical musings on how regulation is immoral.

I think you should work very hard at not trying to read between the lines. Because I've never said regulation is immoral. It is true that I think there should be less regulation. And I've asked others to justify their belief that property rights should be curtailed. And I've asked others to consider the socioeconomic consequences of the same. The nature of these arguments, and their truth value is completely independent of my personal opinion. They are, simply put, an attempt to interrogate the reasoning of why people clasp so strongly to these regulations.

I defend regulation when I think it objectively makes sense, and oppose it when I think it objectively doesn't.

Objectively in what sense? Once again you're probably going to call me "dogmatic" (whatever that word means to you) for pushing you on this point. But you're making a completely ridiculous statement. In fact, I would pretty much never say my economic, political or metaphysical views are "objectively true". I'd just never say that. And if you can find somewhere where I have said such a thing, I'll send you $100. Not just here. But anywhere, in any of my writings, tweets, blog entries, newspaper columns, etc.

I think there are economic and political theories that I'd argue have veracity. But objectively true? No.

And, once again I'm being called "dogmatic" while you're calling your political-economic theories "objectively true". For the neutral observers, I once again call attention to this gazing pot.

My argument all along has rested on what I think is the need to structure both for the greater good, and instead you've chosen to refer to some occupy nobodies and put me in a bucket of hippies.

Well, truth be told, I have a bit of sympathy for that "bucket of hippies" -- had you read my links you may have seen that. But you totally missed the point I was trying to make. Which is that your language evokes trite class warfare nonsense when you talk about the total corrupting force of markets.

 

[brockm]

I knew there were a number of "denominations" in the Libertarian faith. It is interesting to hear that you and your friends are in a non Rand one, though I note Jaworski talks about "Randian first principles." Good, I am actually marginally sympathetic to some of your thinking. But there are, of course, several other, and larger Libertarian denominations, for whom Rand is a secular saint... as you very well know. But all that is beside the point, which you have not yet addressed.

You imply cultish undertones where there are no more among libertarians than any other political philosophy. Rand's Objectivist's, yes. And you also falsely attribute Objectivism as being a prevalent and popular strain of libertarianism. This is simply not true.

The libertarian tradition is an old tradition dating back to the Enlightenment. It's philosophical contributions to your daily life are vast an tangible. One of the principle framers of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Alan Borovoy is a libertarian. The father of liberalism, John Stuart Mill was a libertarian by todays definition.

It is worth mentioning that libertarian today is perfectly and completely exchangeable with the term "classical liberal". Thus, we might go on to say that Wilfred Laurier was Canada's most recent libertarian prime minister. Indeed, in those times, the Liberal Party was very libertarian by today's standards before their shift towards the economic left in the late 1960s.

Thus, "liberal" then meant what I mean when I say "libertarian" today. What "liberal" means in contemporary usage is something more akin to "moderate social democracy", and thus is closer to the NDP's third-way socialism than it is to its original liberal roots.

Any cursory reading about political philosophy will of course, awaken you to all this.

Thus, most people today who vote liberal, would consider the Liberal Party before the 1960s as a crazy far-right economic party. But then again, that's what "liberal" actually means. "Liberal markets" is another term for "free markets". We say "market liberalization" when we're talking about becoming less socialist. We say "trade liberalization" when we're talking about free trade.

It is a bastardization of the term "liberal" that it has come to include the concept of more regulated markets -- an import of Fabianism from the mid-century. And that "conservative" has become entangled in an unholy alliance of social traditionalism and economic liberalism. In fact, social traditionalism and economic liberalism aren't even truly compatible with each other. But I'll leave you to figure out why.

The bottom line is, when people like you try and pass libertarianism off as some off-the-wall kooky philosophy, you should probably step back and consider it's contributions to thinks like this.

Do you have any comments on the argument that preservationism is so limited in Toronto, as opposed to Paris, that any effectson housing prices are negligible? I am no expert on real estate and may be wrong on that... but you haven't even addressed the point.

No. I do not have specific data on Toronto. Although I do have data on Paris, New York City and London in regards to the effects of preservationism on rent prices.

But I avoid answering the question because it sets up a false dilemma in which people are trying to make me venture. It is very deliberate that I do not do this. If I concede that saving one, or two heritage properties will not have any appreciable affect on price levels, it will be jumped on as a way to shut down my point. Which is to say, that this line of questioning is completely fallacious and sets up a false standard with which to measure the merits of my argument.

Re the Jaworski article: I lived in Switzerland as a boy, in Geneva and have been back a number of times. I have spent a summer in Sweden, with Swedes rather than in tourist centers. The picture of those countries is a little warped. Both have a lot of regulations. The Swedes spend a higher percentage of their GDP on the military than we do. The Swiss spend a bit less, but then they require most of the young to middle age adult male population to serve for free in the military, which does tend to keep costs down. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

That strikes me as somewhat regulatory in attitude. The Swiss are highly xenophobic and the Swedes only marginally less so, with a an active racist minority. (An aside: that's in the background of The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo trilogy.) They may be liberal and secular, with respect to church attendance, but both countries have state churches. Things are complicated.

I think you're conflating social and cultural views with a conversation about political rights. These things influence each other, but they are distinct.

 

[RC8]

I read all your links, and don't care for how much sympathy you've got for anyone.

As I said I work with objectives, not with nonsense philosophies. When, say, a new hospital strategically located in a vulnerable neighbourhood is built and this leads to a rise in life expectancy and health of its citizens, then assuming there was a source of funding this was an objectively effective method of accomplishing the goal of bringing well-being to people.

I'm a scientist, so empirical evidence is what I base most of my decisions on. Occasionally you must rely on theory, but then you ought to put it to test eventually.

Don't assume that because you work in this subjective artsy philowhatever universe that therefore every single thing in this world is subjective, for it is not.

But once again, that's one more post of yours which throws nothing of value re: the heritage debate.

I'll restate:

I postulate that if the buildings on King should be protected due to their current status as an asset to the community in their current form, and due to their potential to become an even bigger asset to the community if they are tactfully restored in the future. This protection will have negligible effects on housing prices or any other variable as far as I can tell, and it will in fact make this neighbourhood more desirable to live in. Protecting these buildings would be consistent with policies that prioritise the well-being of people and neighbourhoods over a developers' hypothetical desire to destroy something that it doesn't need to destroy in order to still generate very large amounts of profit from the property at stake.

One more post in which you address nothing at all.

 

[brockm]

I read all your links, and don't care for how much sympathy you've got for anyone.

As I said I work with objectives, not with nonsense philosophies. When, say, a new hospital strategically located in a vulnerable neighbourhood is built and this leads to a rise in life expectancy and health of its citizens, then assuming there was a source of funding this was an objectively effective method of accomplishing the goal of bringing well-being to people.

I'm a scientist, so empirical evidence is what I base most of my decisions on. Occasionally you must rely on theory, but then you ought to put it to test eventually.

Really? What kind of scientist? I'm an economist. Pleased to meet you.

Don't assume that because you work in this subjective artsy philowhatever universe that therefore every single thing in this world is subjective, for it is not.

For a scientist advancing the virtues of empiricism, you sure now how to make conclusions based on fallacious reasoning and speculative bias. You're doing Karl Popper proud.

But once again, that's one more post of yours which throws nothing of value re: the heritage debate.

I'll restate:

I postulate that if the buildings on King should be protected due to their current status as an asset to the community in their current form, and due to their potential to become an even bigger asset to the community if they are tactfully restored in the future. This protection will have negligible effects on housing prices or any other variable as far as I can tell, and it will in fact make this neighbourhood more desirable to live in. Protecting these buildings would be consistent with policies that prioritise the well-being of people and neighbourhoods over a developers' hypothetical desire to destroy something that it doesn't need to destroy in order to still generate very large amounts of profit from the property at stake.

One more post in which you address nothing at all.

Read my previous post the 67Cup about why I'm not directly responding to this question. I explain it clearly.

 

[unimaginative2]

Adam Vaughan is pushing right now to create a framework which will facilitate the retention of historic buildings in his ward (and throughout the city), by making the economics of it work through special tax adjustments, zoning etc. This will mean that (what's left of) the old king west warehouses won't be taxed out of existence. These warehouses are by no means 'Class A' office space, but architects and animation studios don't need or want and can't afford 'Triple A' space.

These creative and artificially constructed solutions will not only preserve heritage buildings, but they will also keep affordable office space downtown, where it's needed.

This is ludicrous. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Vaughan loudly cheerleaded for condos to replace virtually everything in the former warehouse district, and now he's leading the charge to preserve a handful of the remainder? After he specifically blocked Heritage Toronto's attempt to preserve the Westinghouse building?

 

[adma]

Funny how brockm's persisting several pages after posting the following, which ought to have been enough to discredit him, regardless of any "correctness of views", nuances, etc...

Done with this discussion
Multiple posters have intimated that I'm a shill of some sort for developers.

To be honest, having been accused of this multiple times in this thread, and also seeing you casually accuse Edward Glaeser, the esteemed Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, whose pretty much the leading economic researcher on urban development and big cities, I am led to the conclusion that you people are not worth continuing this argument with.

I will not defend my reputation to you. Or anyone else.

Not only do I not work for real estate developers in any way, shape or form -- or have any direct or indirect investments in real estate development, for that matter -- but I no longer even work in the financial industry.

I will argue the fine points of an argument ad nauseam. What I will not do, is discuss anything with a**holes who, without qualification, and only to serve their arguments, attempt to impugn my integrity.

F*ck off.

Ah, these Internet message boards. In many ways, not different from 90s Usenet with its Kirby Inwoods and Valery Fabrikants...

 

[Automation Gallery]

This is ludicrous. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Vaughan loudly cheerleaded for condos to replace virtually everything in the former warehouse district, and now he's leading the charge to preserve a handful of the remainder? After he specifically blocked Heritage Toronto's attempt to preserve the Westinghouse building?

I know, mind boggling

 

[brockm]

Funny how brockm's persisting several pages after posting the following, which ought to have been enough to discredit him, regardless of any "correctness of views", nuances, etc...

Ah, these Internet message boards. In many ways, not different from 90s Usenet with its Kirby Inwoods and Valery Fabrikants...

I said I wouldn't argue with people who impugn my integrity. I didn't mean to suggest I would vacate the board. Something which clearly is much to your chagrin.

But come to think of it, I would say you've added nothing to the discussion. All you're doing is sniping and dismissing. Probably because you actually have nothing to add to the discussion.

Then again, you'll say I've added nothing too, in a further show of the vacuity with which you've paraded so far.

 

[neubilder]

This is ludicrous. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Vaughan loudly cheerleaded for condos to replace virtually everything in the former warehouse district, and now he's leading the charge to preserve a handful of the remainder? After he specifically blocked Heritage Toronto's attempt to preserve the Westinghouse building?

Hmm, I wasn't aware of that but, now that you mention it, it does seem to be a case of too little too late. I was under the impression Vaughan was trying to achieve the best results given limited jurisdiction. That said I also often had the feeling he was being too accommodating to developers, and too willing to let the historic warehouses serve as bargaining chips.

 

[neubilder]

You may find my arguments... SURPRISINGLY NUANCED!

I think this sums it up.

 

[brockm]

I think this sums it up.

Yeah. Totally. So I guess that means you're conceding that I'm not dogmatic, then.

 

[neubilder]

No, that was sarcasm. If you can't see the irony in your own word (and emphasis), then it really sums it up.

 

[67Cup]

I want to thank you for the marvellous excerpts of lectures from PHIL 110, Introduction to Political Philosophy. It is so long since I actually sat through such a course that I doubtless need a refresher. And you captured the tone so perfectly. I can almost hear the hectoring insecurity of the beginning assistant professor who is stuck with the course because the more senior professors are so tired of teaching it. I congratulate you on your literary skills, sir!

I may owe you an apology. I used the "denomination" and "faith" language of the structures of the Christian church as an analogy for divisions of opinion within libertarianism largely because I suspected any religious language would get a rise out of you. Obviously given your little rant, I succeeded more than I anticipated. Perhaps I was insensitive in playing with your evident insecurities. But no, an actual apology would be insincere. I do acknowledge that I used the language deliberately, knowing that it might nettle, however.

I don't think of libertarianism as inherently kooky, though like most ideologies, some kooks hold the position. I associate it not so much with any intellectual eccentrity but rather with a personality type, contrarian, rebarbative, prone to generalizing statements based on little evidence, insecure in social relations, low EQ. That is surely an error on my part, little more than prejudice. No ideology can be reduced to psychology and it is folly to underestimate those who differ from one's own position. It is just that from time to time, the prejudice seems to be reinforced... Still, I ought to struggle against it.

Thank you for at last indirectly addressing the question about whether the preservation of the block in question has any discernible effect on housing costs. You have, of course, effectively admitted that you have no actual evidence for your original claims in this thread. QED.

I note that you spent most of your Friday night penning a series of screeds against your self-created foes in this thread. I hope you have a better Saturday night. It's a sunny Spring day where I live and I plan to enjoy the day. So, goodbye from here.

You imply cultish undertones where there are no more among libertarians than any other political philosophy. Rand's Objectivist's, yes. And you also falsely attribute Objectivism as being a prevalent and popular strain of libertarianism. This is simply not true.

The libertarian tradition is an old tradition dating back to the Enlightenment. It's philosophical contributions to your daily life are vast an tangible. One of the principle framers of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Alan Borovoy is a libertarian. The father of liberalism, John Stuart Mill was a libertarian by todays definition.

It is worth mentioning that libertarian today is perfectly and completely exchangeable with the term "classical liberal". Thus, we might go on to say that Wilfred Laurier was Canada's most recent libertarian prime minister. Indeed, in those times, the Liberal Party was very libertarian by today's standards before their shift towards the economic left in the late 1960s.

Thus, "liberal" then meant what I mean when I say "libertarian" today. What "liberal" means in contemporary usage is something more akin to "moderate social democracy", and thus is closer to the NDP's third-way socialism than it is to its original liberal roots.

Any cursory reading about political philosophy will of course, awaken you to all this.

Thus, most people today who vote liberal, would consider the Liberal Party before the 1960s as a crazy far-right economic party. But then again, that's what "liberal" actually means. "Liberal markets" is another term for "free markets". We say "market liberalization" when we're talking about becoming less socialist. We say "trade liberalization" when we're talking about free trade.

It is a bastardization of the term "liberal" that it has come to include the concept of more regulated markets -- an import of Fabianism from the mid-century. And that "conservative" has become entangled in an unholy alliance of social traditionalism and economic liberalism. In fact, social traditionalism and economic liberalism aren't even truly compatible with each other. But I'll leave you to figure out why.

The bottom line is, when people like you try and pass libertarianism off as some off-the-wall kooky philosophy, you should probably step back and consider it's contributions to thinks like this.



No. I do not have specific data on Toronto. Although I do have data on Paris, New York City and London in regards to the effects of preservationism on rent prices.

But I avoid answering the question because it sets up a false dilemma in which people are trying to make me venture. It is very deliberate that I do not do this. If I concede that saving one, or two heritage properties will not have any appreciable affect on price levels, it will be jumped on as a way to shut down my point. Which is to say, that this line of questioning is completely fallacious and sets up a false standard with which to measure the merits of my argument.



I think you're conflating social and cultural views with a conversation about political rights. These things influence each other, but they are distinct.

 

[adma]

I said I wouldn't argue with people who impugn my integrity. I didn't mean to suggest I would vacate the board. Something which clearly is much to your chagrin.

But come to think of it, I would say you've added nothing to the discussion. All you're doing is sniping and dismissing. Probably because you actually have nothing to add to the discussion.

Then again, you'll say I've added nothing too, in a further show of the vacuity with which you've paraded so far.

a) you're dodging the manner in which you said it, which is what I was really addressing: if I may quote once again...

I will argue the fine points of an argument ad nauseam. What I will not do, is discuss anything with a**holes who, without qualification, and only to serve their arguments, attempt to impugn my integrity.

F*ck off.

Put it this way: if you mean to be high-minded and professorial with us, that's the kind of verbal conduct that would lead you to lose your professorial position. Essentially, you shot yourself in the foot right there.

And b): I've added things to the thread subject discussion--in fact, I'm the one who broke the alarm-bell news on this row being neither listed nor designated.

However, when it comes to your discussion, it's not worth contributing to; because essentially, what you're engaging in is narcissistic thread-hijacking. (And yes, as per my Usenet back-reference, it's the kind of narcissism one expects from ex-professors who lost tenure due to "incidents" and who seek a platform to blather on in.)

 

[urbandreamer]

Although to be honest, I do see BrockM's point. Overall I believe in the same brand of Libertarianism that he does. I just happen to think somehow maintaining the character of a neighbourhood while adding large numbers of new units is possible. I don't think any project in Toronto to date has achieved my ideal though.

For example, I would love to see a test area of Toronto--say Lawrence/Keele/Eglinton/Dufferin--completely relax all zoning restrictions for a set period of time--10 years perhaps?--and other than having a strong design review panel approve of outstanding architecture, let anyone redevelop their property in the zone. I think it would result in astonishing vibrancy & fresh ideas--like the early builders in NA encounter (part of me believes the bad guys in development are really the urban planners, politicians, and unions too stuborn to change.)