tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15539385.post114730733301405897..comments2023-07-05T01:38:40.661+10:00Comments on eCouncillor: Balancing Planning with the Free Enterprise Spirit - the Jane Jacobs' legacyShayne Mallardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13476864231857879099noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15539385.post-1147757590919869342006-05-16T15:33:00.000+10:002006-05-16T15:33:00.000+10:00This is a tough question, and it is nice to see th...This is a tough question, and it is nice to see that at least one of the Sydney councillors is aware of it. Part of the problem that affects planning is the "death of a thousand cuts" point - councils can pass seemingly innocent measures to help noisy or vested interests with the utilitarian justification that it helps a majority. The thousand cuts problem also leads to matters like Clover's backdoor attempt to abolish Christmas (against the wishes of the silent majority), as the interests of the noisy pluralistic PC faction overrode commonsense and were forced through under the guise of a deeply insincere attempt to be tolerant of non-Judaeo-Christain values (noting that other religious value systems might call for Clover to be stoned to death rather than elected Mayor, of course). <BR/><BR/>There are two problems - one, the obvious philosophical problem with utilitarianism, that it is easy to justify anything a majority wants, and two, a moral one, since it makes the population think that its problems can be solved by state action. <BR/><BR/>Not everything can be solved by state action, and many things should not be. A dependence on state action has led to the noise ordinance problem. A deadened neighbourhood relies on the council to police noisy neighbours, and noisy neighbours act with impunity because they know council resources are stretched and it is unlikely anything will happen if they do breach the ordinance. There is then a spiral downwards as each side relies on the council, and neither side takes responsibilty for its own actions.<BR/><BR/>See <A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/05/16/do1602.xml" REL="nofollow">Roger Scruton</A> on the same issues with "teaching" values. Jacobs's position was essentially a conservative one - trusting in the commosense of the greater part of the majority. That is the folly of the "village" proposal - it is rampant Soviet style state action (forcing the creation of Potemkin villages to fit Clover's presuppositions as to how a city should be run - divided into rainbow Bantustans - gays here, yuppies here, hippes there) posing as organic conservatism. It is also deeply arrogant and hubristic - how on earth are the Village People so sure that their pinched view of the future is correct? <BR/><BR/>This is the fundamental truth that Burke saw, and that many councillors do not. the job of a council is to arrange garbage collection and keep footpaths clean, not to pay for Leathermen Fairs. If leathermen care enough about it, they can pay themselves.Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01567244774079355806noreply@blogger.com