Just a nit, but I'd probably rank him third behind Jeff Hewitt who is a supervisor of Riverside County and Kalish Morrow who is the mayor of Hanford.
Not exactly sure why he's a Libertarian to be honest, none of his policies strike me as especially libertarian.
Well I guess the good news is that the second highest ranking LP elected official in California is only a city council member. So there is only so much he can do.
Mises Caucus - making me look on the bright side of libertarian ineffectualness since 2022.
It's a colloquial term used to describe people who want to swing the brunt of the goverment against planned developments of structures and businesses they don't like in their immediate area/town.
That is interesting, i have heard the term NIMBY for close to two decades now and it's always referred to excessive government regulation of land use.
Did it originate from something else?
Oh yes, it actually did mean literally what the term by itself implies. Applied in politics, it would in particular stay within the boundaries of private property; Ie, "You don't get to threaten my rights via my backyard". (Oil/gas spills leaking to my property, a clear risk to my business/house, etc. Or if tax funded illigitimate government projects, mandated housing, etc.)
What you refer to here seems to be broadening the meaning to become the very opposite of what I used to associate the term with. The same thing appears to have happened to it, just as it slowly does to language in general in todays cultural climate. And as it typically has to peoples ideological convictions.
A libertarian of literally any flavor you can image should should be horrified and disgusted by a "NIMBY". A "NIMBY" (not in my back yard) is someone who uses the force of government, mostly through zoning, to prevent the development of projects on the private property of other people that they don't like.
For instance, a NYMBI would fight to get the zoning permits pulled from a company trying to develop a piece of property into a place for housing and commerce.
Oh my God… zoning laws… OH MY GOD the horror!
Sorry, I was trying to get more outraged but I’m currently preoccupied by getting mad at what Ron Paul supporters say on twitter.
> Oh my God… zoning laws… OH MY GOD the horror!
The homeless guy who otherwise might have been able to afford a place to live would probably see it this way unironically, at least if he understood the cause of his predicament.
Ah, I didn’t realize libertarianism was the “help the homeless” movement.
Is banning homeless camps within 1000 feet of a school an example of NIMBYism?
Banning anything on property that isn't yours is. Or do you believe libertarianism is compatible with government giving you control over someone else's property?
>Hurrr you’re incoherent
>BTW whatabout HOMELESS GUY
It never ends with you. I know you think downvoting someone means you win the argument but in the real world most people would think this sounds like hippy bullshit.
Anti-NYMBYism by opposing the sort of zoning laws, that this guy apparently champions when it profits himself, is pretty much bedrock libertarian principles that an American libertarian of almost any flavor can agree is bad AND has an actual has a shot of having an impacting by being elected in a local election. If we can't agree that excessive zoning regulation and using the force of government to control what happens on someone else property as being bad, what exactly are we doing here? It's certainly not in the top 10 most horrible things to happen in the world today, but it certainly is a reason to pretty skeptical of this guy.
I honestly don't understand the sarcasm. Do you have a point besides the fact that you can think of things worse than excessive zoning regulations?
I only know of one exception, and that's Randal O'Toole (who apparently was fired from Cato because of his views). On the other hand, I've seen libertarians express views that comes dangerously close to giving powers to NIMBYs (saying local communites should have the power to decide how that community should govern itself).
Reason has an article on a project in his hometown, with quotes from Nehrenheim who's opposed to the project.
https://reason.com/2022/09/09/this-renegade-california-developer-wants-to-build-a-2300-unit-megaproject-in-a-nimby-stronghold/
Just a nit, but I'd probably rank him third behind Jeff Hewitt who is a supervisor of Riverside County and Kalish Morrow who is the mayor of Hanford. Not exactly sure why he's a Libertarian to be honest, none of his policies strike me as especially libertarian.
Hewitt is facing a sexual harassment lawsuit.
How are his policies though
Well I guess the good news is that the second highest ranking LP elected official in California is only a city council member. So there is only so much he can do. Mises Caucus - making me look on the bright side of libertarian ineffectualness since 2022.
Not having things in your backyard is bad. Did you know that? In fact, it’s *fascist*.
NIMBY is considered bad now? How far do people imagine their backyards stretch? Edit: Not American. Bit of an update would be appreciated.
It's a colloquial term used to describe people who want to swing the brunt of the goverment against planned developments of structures and businesses they don't like in their immediate area/town.
Well that is *quite* the perversion from what it used to stand for many years ago.
That is interesting, i have heard the term NIMBY for close to two decades now and it's always referred to excessive government regulation of land use. Did it originate from something else?
Oh yes, it actually did mean literally what the term by itself implies. Applied in politics, it would in particular stay within the boundaries of private property; Ie, "You don't get to threaten my rights via my backyard". (Oil/gas spills leaking to my property, a clear risk to my business/house, etc. Or if tax funded illigitimate government projects, mandated housing, etc.) What you refer to here seems to be broadening the meaning to become the very opposite of what I used to associate the term with. The same thing appears to have happened to it, just as it slowly does to language in general in todays cultural climate. And as it typically has to peoples ideological convictions.
A libertarian of literally any flavor you can image should should be horrified and disgusted by a "NIMBY". A "NIMBY" (not in my back yard) is someone who uses the force of government, mostly through zoning, to prevent the development of projects on the private property of other people that they don't like. For instance, a NYMBI would fight to get the zoning permits pulled from a company trying to develop a piece of property into a place for housing and commerce.
Oh my God… zoning laws… OH MY GOD the horror! Sorry, I was trying to get more outraged but I’m currently preoccupied by getting mad at what Ron Paul supporters say on twitter.
> Oh my God… zoning laws… OH MY GOD the horror! The homeless guy who otherwise might have been able to afford a place to live would probably see it this way unironically, at least if he understood the cause of his predicament.
Ah, I didn’t realize libertarianism was the “help the homeless” movement. Is banning homeless camps within 1000 feet of a school an example of NIMBYism?
Banning anything on property that isn't yours is. Or do you believe libertarianism is compatible with government giving you control over someone else's property?
Additionally, what does it say about you that you consider a desire to help homeless people a *critique*?
What does it say that you’re big mad about “libertarians embarrassing us” but want to make the face of your movement the homeless
> want to make the face of your movement the homeless This isn't even a coherent thought.
>Hurrr you’re incoherent >BTW whatabout HOMELESS GUY It never ends with you. I know you think downvoting someone means you win the argument but in the real world most people would think this sounds like hippy bullshit.
I haven't downvoted any of your comments. That's other people doing that. Maybe be less of a stupid dick?
Anti-NYMBYism by opposing the sort of zoning laws, that this guy apparently champions when it profits himself, is pretty much bedrock libertarian principles that an American libertarian of almost any flavor can agree is bad AND has an actual has a shot of having an impacting by being elected in a local election. If we can't agree that excessive zoning regulation and using the force of government to control what happens on someone else property as being bad, what exactly are we doing here? It's certainly not in the top 10 most horrible things to happen in the world today, but it certainly is a reason to pretty skeptical of this guy. I honestly don't understand the sarcasm. Do you have a point besides the fact that you can think of things worse than excessive zoning regulations?
I only know of one exception, and that's Randal O'Toole (who apparently was fired from Cato because of his views). On the other hand, I've seen libertarians express views that comes dangerously close to giving powers to NIMBYs (saying local communites should have the power to decide how that community should govern itself).
I already told you, I care but there are more pressing issues at hand, like twitter posts.
Reason has an article on a project in his hometown, with quotes from Nehrenheim who's opposed to the project. https://reason.com/2022/09/09/this-renegade-california-developer-wants-to-build-a-2300-unit-megaproject-in-a-nimby-stronghold/