New York mayor wants total government control over private property within the city
"I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too."
Another example of Atlas Shrugged becoming reality. If the mayor of New York had said this during Ayn Rand's lifetime, I think she would have left the city.
Also see:
http://nypost.com/2017/09/05/a-plea-t...
Another example of Atlas Shrugged becoming reality. If the mayor of New York had said this during Ayn Rand's lifetime, I think she would have left the city.
Also see:
http://nypost.com/2017/09/05/a-plea-t...
Once the cities and city states were for protection from the outside world but these days, we need protection from the cities.
They probably should be just places to visit but not for living there...but then again, I'm just a New English country boy and would naturally be prejudice.
Slavery was once legal and slaves among the most law-abiding residents.
We were indoctrinated into an orderly "law and order" society and are loathe to recognize when the old paradigms have failed. The world you and I inhabit haschanged a great deal from the even the world we were born into.
May all your wealth be confiscated and spread about for the greater good. After all, you didn't make that so why should you have it.
Message delivered. Steps down from soap box.
She lived during the Red Decade and heard it many times. She would have left the city if she thought the people there would go along with it, and she did -- she died: she said that she felt fortunate that she was old enough to not to have to live through what was coming.
York was so great a city. Maybe because, from what I hear and have read, you don't need a car very much to get around.
If a condo is something you desire; Is not a $2M condo something to aspire to? It should create a pull, a drive to do one's best. Wonderful things are to be desired, to be worked for. The comforts and delights of the world should be a reward for furthering the abilities of your fellow man, a golden stone on the pathway of life.
How have the desirable fruits of one's great labor and effort been twisted into a reason for contempt and reason for their demise?
Truly; how on this earth have we allowed that to happen?
The concept claims to provide the most services to the people in the most efficient manner possible. However, humans did not evolve in these conditions, and the rat warren conditions instill a degree of hostility. Pandemics go through densely packed populations like wildfire. Absolute dedication to system maintenance is necessary, or the whole place quickly becomes a sewer. Natural disasters result in massive casualties compared to a population spread over more territory.
The sensible solution is to spread the U.S. population over more territory, not less. Take advantage of distributed power, telecommuting, online shopping, remote delivery, online education. Smaller communities are more friendly and personal.
Zoning laws. Hell, ALL governments enjoy and exploit this control over it's "citizens"... And if this wasn't bad enough... Go ANYWHERE there is a HOA, and try to paint YOUR property an unapproved color, or build a fence of an unapproved material... your "benevolent" HOA board (frequently self-appointed) will be happy to fine you for daring to challenge their socialist order... all for the good of the neighbors and neighborhood, natch!
That's why I'll never live in a place where HOA's and CCR's are the law of the land. Sadly, most new homes have a self appointed board of control to tell you how to live your life that you are REQUIRED to pay into, that can fine you when you fall afoul of the latest social constraints on your property...
If I were to go to, say, Portland, Oregon (it could just as well be Boise, Idaho or Dubuque, Iowa), to a historically residential neighborhood, buy up a few lots, and knock down the old Victorians with the intent on putting up a coal burning artisan steel mill... Residential Zoning? I'll show them - I'll ignore it. Ha ha ha...
Yes, you are required to be a member, pay their dues, AND follow their rules. And they can hold you both civilly legally liable and in some cases criminally liable... and it holds up in court.
What amazes me are there are people who love them - because "they'll keep the property values up, and go after those rulebreakers"...
Personally - I have NO use for these lecherous leeching socialists... Whoever gave them the authority of Stalin, in whatever evil way possible, should be shot.
What about the people who need a $2,000,000 condo? Don't they count in his world?
But, coming from every community? That's a lie.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes..."
The really frightening part is that enough New Yorkers agree with him and will no doubt re-elect him.
He says if he has his way, city gov't would control everything. That doesn't make new places to live appear or make people wanting to live there disappear... wait, it actually does make people move away.
"What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.
"I’ll give you an example. I was down one day on Varick Street, somewhere close to Canal, and there was a big sign out front of a new condo saying, “Units start at $2 million.” And that just drives people stark raving mad in this city, because that kind of development is clearly not for everyday people. It’s almost like it’s being flaunted. Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality."
"There’s two ways to address it: Ask more from the wealthy in terms of their obligation to society, first and foremost from taxes. Or raise wages and benefits for everyday people."
"The problem is the top end. In very few ways can we address the rampant growth of wealth among the one percent. The state and the federal government have the power to do that... It frustrates me greatly that we don’t have the power here to tax the wealthy in this city."
"it’s quite clear that some of the same forces that held back New York City for a long time are now affecting our nation. And they’re not going to be around too much longer, in my opinion, but for a brief and sad moment that negative, hateful, divisive tabloid culture, the same culture that vilified the word liberal, effectively, became too ascendant. It’s now crashing on the rocks. And it’s going to be replaced by something very different."
"I admire Elizabeth Warren. I admire Bernie Sanders. I admire Chuck Schumer"
1. He wants more gov't control without mention how that helps anyone beyond those calling the shots.
2. He wants to deny people expensive condos with no mention of how this helps anyone.
3. He mentions raising wages. Maybe he's about to talk about something positive.
4. No, he wants to tax people more, with no mention of how that helps.
Maybe we're supposed to imagine that gov't would use the power and money he wants it to have for good, but he never comes out and says it.
Even if he said it, it wouldn't make it moral or workable, but at least I would be able to see where's he coming from.
If they set up a "very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality," they may get that result.
I think if only people who "would love to have a very, very powerful gov't" involved in their daily lives moved someplace, it would be almost empty.
Then again, the determined progressives will just say "Yeah, but I'm not like them. I could make it work." Idiots!
Many people simply refuse to invest in the study of others' actions and the consequent repercussions. They insist on experiencing those things for themselves because they want to believe that somehow they are special: that they are different from everyone else to such a degree that the laws of nature do not apply to them. This applies to everyone to some degree but progressives make this self-exception into a policy. As such, only the blunt 2x4 of reality has the force necessary to jar from them the rose-colored glasses they strap to their faces all the while proclaiming that they have the most open of minds.
Of course I don't wish ill on others. But tragedy is often the only opportunity under which a truly open approach to life may be instigated in many people. And I would rather give them the chance to change their ways through tragedy than see them condemned by their own rebelliousness and ignorance.
If you don't want to "wish it on others" then don't write "All I can say is that I honestly would love to see it happen on such a grand scale just so we could watch the collapse."
I'm not sure where you think learning comes from then. Books and the written language are for the primary purpose of propagating the stories and learning of others. The vast majority of everything learned came not from you, but from others. Good grief, why did Rand write Atlas Shrugged if not to give us the opportunity to read it and study it? Is it not a story? Yes, it is.
Failure teaches us to reevaluate our hypotheses (Thomas Edison discovered hundreds of ways not to build a lightbulb). Death teaches us how beautiful and valuable life is (communism wouldn't be such a crime if it weren't responsible for mass murder). Sickness teaches us the value of good health (Pasteur researched vaccines to combat smallpox). The pains, travails, and difficulties of others can either be instructive to us or not, depending on whether or not we choose to learn from them. What is the phrase so applicable here? "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
"If you don't want to "wish it on others" then don't write "All I can say is that I honestly would love to see it happen on such a grand scale just so we could watch the collapse.""
I wrote that tongue in cheek, but unfortunately it's hard to project that via the medium of a forum.
Concepts and principles are not absorbed instantaneously. They take time to discover, validate, absorb and integrate, whether on one's own for some of it or learning previously discovered knowledge from others while sorting it out from the mixture and nonsense in circulation.
No one discovers the proper principles of morality and politics or how to properly understand history out of the collapse of a society -- even if it wakes them up and leads them to question anything they previously accepted. Knowledge does not come by revelation after experiencing a disaster; all that tells you, if anything and if you already have any decent standards at all, is that something went wrong, not what, why, or how, and not what is the proper course.
Figuring all that out while learning to reject the falsehoods takes time, effort, and objectivity. With all that is already happening in the country and in the world, if anyone still needs a motive to begin to rethink his mistaken beliefs, let alone go in the right direction, a collapse will not help him.
No, rational people do not need "death" and "sickness" to appreciate life. Anyone who can see that choices make a difference, and therefore appreciate what he has and wants without wallowing in sickness and death. Goals achieved and the possibilities show what is of value, not death. Life that is proper to man in the face of choice, not stagnation or death, gives rise to the need for a science of ethics. That fundamental alternative does not tell you what is proper for man or what values to seek and appreciate.
The problems that rational people have solved throughout history do not explain how they got the solutions. The time-consuming focus and creative effort of rational thinkers who know it is right to think and act independently causes the solutions, which do not spring out of the original problem, let alone the "pains, travails, and difficulties of others", just because they are there. Throughout most of history problems were not solved. Our focus is on achieving value and what that takes, not avoiding death by adopting an effortless revelation in response to fear and destruction.
And no, communism isn't "such a crime" just because it's practitioners committed mass murder. It is a moral crime at its root for its subjugation and sacrifice of the individual to the collective as a matter of principle, not a moral ideal that went bad in implementation. Understanding that and what is possible to man and how to achieve it takes more than looking at the graves in shock.
The notion we often see in the 'tea party' movement and here on this forum that the way to 'salvation' is to go on 'strike' and otherwise bring the country down in a collapse so people will 'wake up' and pursue the right course is terribly mistaken and profoundly anti-intellectual. It is not something to relish -- with or without backtracking and claiming it was only humor -- and it was not what Ayn Rand advocated or intended Atlas Shrugged to be as a political 'strategy'.
The dominant philosophy of a culture determines over time what it becomes and what politics it creates. Reforming the philosophy of the country to understand and adopt reason and individualism, in all their facets, is the only way to reform its politics. There are no shortcuts.
"Concepts and principles are not absorbed instantaneously."
You've never had an "A-ha!" moment in your life have you? Where things just "click" and the light bulb turns on? I feel sorry for you because its an immensely gratifying sensation. My son can look at advanced mathematical principles and instantly grasp how they are useful. He can tell when to use matrix multiplication and when to use a Fourier transform in his programming while I stand behind him in awe. Just the other day he looked up a paper on different types of 3D rendering algorithms and in under five minutes (just long enough to skim through the paper) had told me in which situations each one was best. He has a talent for it. I've seen others who are so mechanically inclined that they can tell you what is wrong with an engine (and how to fix it) simply by listening to it despite having no previous experience with that kind of vehicle.
I would actually argue that concepts and principles certainly may be understood instantaneously provided the individual has the mental acuity and proclivity to the topic. I would argue (contrary to your assertion) that learning is on a scale for everyone and further that there is a scale for every different kind of topic which is individual to that person (and its called intelligence). Any kind of arbitrary assertion that one categorically may not learn and absorb knowledge as fast as their neurons will fire originates from the ivory tower intellectualist who is afraid of true genius - not reality.
"Knowledge does not come by revelation after experiencing a disaster..."
Then you are missing out on all kinds of learning opportunities. That's all I can say. I know many people who specifically credit a disaster or crisis with changing their lives for the better. There are others who use them as excuses to justify doing exactly the same things they have always done. What do we call this? Ah, yes: the victimhood mentality. Those who are self-aware and independent take ownership of the situation and their response to it - no matter what it may be.
"if anyone still needs a motive to begin to rethink his mistaken beliefs, let alone go in the right direction, a collapse will not help him."
You've never really helped anyone work through a real tragedy have you, like the unexpected loss of a job, a severe illness, death of a relative, etc.? You stand to the side. Motive is an evaluation of a proposed path and the value which following that path brings to one's life. Motive is absolutely key to changing one's ways. I have worked with people (and been one of those at times) and often a time of tragedy is what spurs one to re-evaluate one's premises and motives. They finally realize because something went wrong that they need to change and look at something from a different perspective. No, it isn't the ideal way, but it is by far the most common way.
You keep trying to look at thing as if everything is cerebral and people are idiots to not see the truth. Here's a little point of observation: in general, people have to have the truth presented to them in a time in which they are open to accept it (motive) before they will seriously consider it simply because of inertia. People are creatures of habit not only in action but in thought. It takes something out of the ordinary to overcome that inertia and (perhaps) set the ship on a new course. And the greater the inertia the greater the magnitude of event needed to overcome it.
That is why our nation is where it is: inertia. Progressivism didn't become the norm overnight - displacing the traditional liberalism that pervaded this nation only a century before. Progressive idealists have been working for more than a century to influence society and through what tactics: the media and education institutions. Why these in particular? To push their stories and their ideas.
Why did Hitler write "Mein Kampf" or Karl Marx "The Communist Manifesto" or Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals"? Why did Ayn Rand write "The Fountainhead" or "Atlas Shrugged" or Stephen R. Covey "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People"? What about the Bible, the Torah, and the Qu'ran or any number of other books?
Why? To push their stories and their ideas.