Escape From Pianosa

The folks at The Distributed Republic (formerly Catallarchy) have posted this year’s version of their always excellent May Day series, in remembrance of the atrocities of Communism.

I used to be really pro gun-control, back when I was a card-carrying Democrat. I don’t think I ever put much thought to the issue, except that the idea of everyone walking around with guns seemed frightening. I shot pistols and shotguns and rifles as a kid, but I’ve never had the desire to own one myself.

Anyway, in the wake of the horror at Virginia Tech this past week, I’ve been reading a lot about what people have to say about guns. As a libertarian, I don’t have an issue with a university banning guns on the premises, although I think it’s a bad idea. A no-guns allowed policy doesn’t guarantee a killing spree, but it certainly makes it easier. If you don’t believe me, read about how many similar incidents ended differently because of armed civilian resistance.

What I’ve often heard in response to this week’s violence is a generic call for more gun control. But imagine a world in which owing a firearm was not only illegal, but impossible. Meaning that government enforcement of the law was so efficient (please, use your imagination for this exercise) that nobody was able to find a gun on the black market. Imagine a world where only the police and Mr. Bush have the guns. Does that feel safe to you? It feels like a dictatorship to me.

Come to think of it, that’s exactly how things were, gun-wise, in Orwell’s 1984. They couldn’t have revolted even if they wanted to, for a total lack of firepower.

Now, removing your ‘imagination cap’, we realize that the government is not efficient and that even with all guns outlawed, their would still be a thriving black market. A black market where only criminals, by definition, would purchase firearms. So, in addition to Mr. Bush and the police, you can add criminals to the classes of people owing guns. Does that make you feel safer?

Huh? Apparently the state of Arizona doesn’t want Zillow.com competing with its home appraisers:

Since its inception, the popular real estate appraisal website Zillow has been attacked by those in the realty profession, since it has the potential to break up the monopoly that brokers and agents have on real estate information. Now the state of Arizona has issued a cease & deist against the site, because it delivers home price estimates without having appraiser license in the state of Arizona. This is nothing more than a baldfaced attempt to protect members of a certain profession against a new service that might undercut their profits.

I’m not really a fan of Zillow; I don’t believe that their estimates can be trusted. In a free market, I think the appraisers win out–can you imagine a bank saying “oh don’t worry about the appraisal, we’ll just grab the Zestimate!” Well maybe on a government-guaranteed loan…

Still, this is an asinine use of state power and obviously designed to protect a few people with licenses vs. the millions of Arizonans who may purchase homes some day. What’s next? eBay outlawed for competing with local retailers? Gmail banned for competing with the local telephone companies?

For a libertarian analysis of the housing bubble, check out this podcast. Mark Thornton’s conclusion? The bubble is not nearing the end, and it’s all the fault of the federal reserve.

I’m not a very good real estate blogger, am I?

‘Quick take’ takes a hit.’

Regular readers will know that I am generally ‘pro-development.’ I favor growth, especially for Baltimore City, which has grappled with population loss and urban blight for 30 some years now. More specifically, I’m in favor of land-owners having the right to do what they want with their own private property. Good design and good urban aesthetics are important and should be a part of the equation, but not to the point of squelching growth or trampling property rights.

Now, the so-called practice of ‘taking’ land from private owners and giving it to developers or other private entities is another story. Let’s be honest—the word ‘taking’ is little more than a euphemism for theft, as in “we’re taking your land and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

Turns out there’s someone else in Baltimore who believes that maybe, just maybe, Wal-Mart isn’t a totally unmitigated force of evil. Him and you know, the millions of people who like to save money every day.

I’m a member of one of the local chambers, and the other day I got an email shouting the praises for the new minimum wage bill that was passed in congress.

I’m firmly in the camp that minimum wage laws harm unskilled workers by making it harder for them to find employment. There are arguments on both sides of the issue, but even if you think it’s a good thing for workers, it’s obviously not a good thing for small businesses (large supermarkets and other union employers are probably a different story).

So why on Earth would an organization ostensibly charged with the goal of promoting local businesses support a law that makes it more costly to do business!?

…I won’t be getting my land this way.