How zoning rules would work in a free society
Guest post by Ben O’Neill, originally published at www.mises.org on 17 June 2009. Be warned that this article is a bit longer than most ALS posts.
=========================
It is well known that the libertarian political philosophy is antagonistic to coercively imposed rules that limit people’s freedom to use their private property as they see fit. Indeed, the very essence of libertarianism is the nonaggression principle that condemns the initiation of force against person or property. As a result, libertarians have been critical of zoning laws, which restrict the ability of property owners to develop their property or use it for their desired purposes.[1]
Because of this antipathy to zoning laws, some critics of libertarianism fear that a libertarian society would leave people incapable of exercising any control over their neighborhood and preserving the character of their surroundings. They worry that the decisions of surrounding property owners could change the character of their neighborhood to the detriment of their property values or preferred lifestyle. For example, some may worry that their local park will be developed into a housing complex leaving them with nowhere to take their children to play. Others worry that their neighbors may build huge structures that overshadow their now sunny backyards. Whatever their specific concerns, many people share the view that zoning laws are required to prevent their neighborhood from being despoiled by outrageous building developments or uses.
Effectiveness and affordability of an ETS
Guest post from Juel Briggs
==========================
Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, has recently said that by 2030, to meet international emission targets, the world will need to have a carbon price of $US180 ($A225) per tonne. (Source: Bloomberg News.)
Ultimately, such costs will be borne by the tax-payer. At Australia’s current emissions (580 million tonnes p.a.) and working population (10.6 million), a carbon price of $A225 would correspond to a cost per working person of more than $A12,000 per year, or around 25% of the average after-tax earnings. Even if we halve our per-capita emissions by 2030, the cost would still be at least $6,000 each year per working person. Additionally, given the aging of our population it could be expected that by 2030 a greater burden will fall on those working.
Good news & bad news
The good news:
According to Indur Goklany, “Deaths from droughts, which were responsible for 59 percent of the death toll from extreme weather and climate events from 1900-2006, dropped by 99.9 percent since the 1920s. Flood deaths, which accounted for another 35 percent of the 1900-2006 figures, declined by 99 percent”. Us humans are an adaptive and tech-savvy bunch of animals, and we should be proud of our ability to deal with our natural environment.
The bad news:
According to Gabriel Alvarez, who has looked at the impact of the subsidies to renewable energy in Spain, and concludes that “since 2000 Spain spent e571,138 to create each green job” and also that “for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, we can be confident that on average 2.2 jobs will be destroyed, to which we have to add those jobs that the non-subsidized investment would have created”.
ALS on Twitter
As part of our efforts to engage with the millions of freedom fighters from around the world who use twitter to share ideas and help build the libertarian movement, the Australian Libertarian Soceity is finally on twitter.
To those of you who have already entered the 21st century and use Twitter, you may follow us at @AusLibertarians. To those of you who are not on Twitter yet, you are only delaying the inevitable…

