No Code For Old Men (a brief critique of fiscal zoning)

(I'm still sort of working on a much more elaborate critique of this but, at least for the purpose of the blog, I have moved on in my thought experiments and figured I should at least get up a short version while its still fresh in my mind... so here it is...)

So as I mentioned in the last post I was working on a very elaborate criticism of fiscal zoning and how, if expanded, it could effectively serve to eliminate local competition by protecting already established industry and preventing new business owners from being able to enter the market. In a very traditional economic sense, limiting the potential for competition would deter developers from creating new and better products since there would be no potential to make a profit from them (unless they sold them through already established retailers, in which the necessary markup required to provide both parties a profit would render the product unaffordable to the standard public). This completely undermines the fundamental aspect of capitalism. Moreover, even if developers are inspired to create new and better products, this regulation prevents new entrepreneurs from entering the markets that have been protected by fiscal zoning, which for some developers would be the market to which their product is best suited. Having multiple markets protected could effectively stagnate competition (at least within the regulated geographic/political area), and in turn remove a potential entrepreneurs right to try and better him/herself through the market (which was a major part of the original belief that each individual was entitled to a right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). By removing the ability to enter the competitive market we have then effectively stagnated society and removed the potential for individuals to change social class (which, I will argue, is still relevant despite the fact that, at least in theory, we claim not to be a class structured society. While maybe not in the traditional sense, I believe our informal economic segregation could argue otherwise). My point being that, in a capitalist society, fiscal planning would, at least theoretically, lead to a stagnated society representative of the traditional European class structure from which our forefathers ultimately fled.

Taking the thought experiment a step farther, I also find it interesting that this class structure hierarchy from which we fled served as a foundational cornerstone for the enlightenment era’s political and philosophic obsession with private property (a principle still heavily relevant in our modern society), from which the desire to protect individual property led to the subsequent development of land use zoning… the same tool that has since justified the use of fiscal zoning and now holds the growing potential to reinstate the political/societal framework from which our forefathers considered detrimental to human liberty. While I openly admit there are a lot of theoretical IF’s in this thought experiment I do think it’s important to note the potential impact that currently acceptable governmental regulation can have. Fiscal zoning is continuing to grow in popularity and the government has stated, through judicial rulings, that this is an acceptable use of police power. While I have a lot of passion for the theoretical foundation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it seems that over time we’ve allowed (and continue to allow) our freedoms to be compromised for the guarantee of comfort. Without challenges, without competition, we lose sight of our goals to try and be better people, a better society. We have lost sight of the endless pursuit of perfection and settled on a system with vast, obvious, flaws…

When I started writing this I did not consciously intend to come back to the main point of my first post, but apparently I have. I do think it’s an important one though… why settle with imperfection? Appreciate what we have, yes, but never lose the challenge of trying to make it even better. And I also feel that I should (for those of you who do not know we personally very well) explain that I am not universally against the existence and regulation of government. Not in the least. I just believe that we have gone astray, and that government should serve as a tool of the people… all people… and not as a tool to suppress the people. More importantly, I believe that a better government, and a better society, is actually possible… we just need to accept the fact that it will be difficult, that it will be time consuming, and there will be some initial hardships, but ultimately we can do better. We don’t need to settle…