Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

“Change” Not Welcome in Harlem: Neighbors Cause Commotion as Harlem Rezoning Passes

By

Limousine Liberals aren’t the only ones who oppose change. In Harlem, neighbors fought to keep new people out of their neighborhood, and want to force gentrification upon other neighborhoods. In the process they created such a stir at Wednesday’s Council session, they had to be cleared out.

It’s such a strange phenomenon: progressives who act conservative; they preach tolerance, while excluding others from what they feel they own collectively. They applaud “Change” as a buzzword, then fight change when it effects them.

NY Daily News: Council OKs Harlem rezoning plan; cops called to clear opponents

The Real Deal: Council approves Harlem rezoning

AMNY: Council approves controversial Harlem development plan

Recent Market Urbanism post: 125th Street Rezoning

  • Bill Nelson

    I think that the seeming contradictions in the progressive doctrine become a lot more clear when one considers “progressivism” as a religion. Just as religious people preach love of God to justify murder (to say nothing of the plethora of “holy book” internal contradictions), progressive dogma exists as an ideology that primarily serves the “spiritual” needs of its members.

    Consider:

    – Progressive views are generally constant across all of its members; they only disagreement is in the execution. They are guided by their church’s dogma, and would be lost if they needed to think for themselves.

    – Progressives have the answers; their dogma *is* the answer.

    – They engage in tribal rituals. Today, May 1, is a particularly good day to watch the species toss public tantrums for their “causes”.

    – They have pointless rituals, like recycling, Earth Day, etc.

    – They reject evolution (Only super-human “intelligent design” can devise an economy; adaptive markets are cruel frauds.)

    – They promise a poorly-defined utopia in exchange for suffering now. Enjoying the present is a sin (Get rid of your car! Pay your taxes! Hire an incompetent “minority”!); they need to live for a vague future in hope of some sort of “heaven” or “paradise”.

    – They evangelize in their homes, their schools, and in the streets.

    Now, with all that said, I also think that there are many open-minded people with tentatively-held progressive views who can be persuaded with logic and reason. But for the True Believer, forget it. Consistency is entirely besides the point.

  • Bill Nelson

    I think that the seeming contradictions in the progressive doctrine become a lot more clear when one considers “progressivism” as a religion. Just as religious people preach love of God to justify murder (to say nothing of the plethora of “holy book” internal contradictions), progressive dogma exists as an ideology that primarily serves the “spiritual” needs of its members.

    Consider:

    – Progressive views are generally constant across all of its members; they only disagreement is in the execution. They are guided by their church’s dogma, and would be lost if they needed to think for themselves.

    – Progressives have the answers; their dogma *is* the answer.

    – They engage in tribal rituals. Today, May 1, is a particularly good day to watch the species toss public tantrums for their “causes”.

    – They have pointless rituals, like recycling, Earth Day, etc.

    – They reject evolution (Only super-human “intelligent design” can devise an economy; adaptive markets are cruel frauds.)

    – They promise a poorly-defined utopia in exchange for suffering now. Enjoying the present is a sin (Get rid of your car! Pay your taxes! Hire an incompetent “minority”!); they need to live for a vague future in hope of some sort of “heaven” or “paradise”.

    – They evangelize in their homes, their schools, and in the streets.

    Now, with all that said, I also think that there are many open-minded people with tentatively-held progressive views who can be persuaded with logic and reason. But for the True Believer, forget it. Consistency is entirely besides the point.

  • They reject evolution (Only super-human “intelligent design” can devise an economy; adaptive markets are cruel frauds.)

    That quote is very insightful.

    I agree there are many open-minded progressives. I encourage them to open their minds to the value of markets. Just as fundamentalist Christians should open their mind to evolutionary concepts. They are so similar in concept.

    I think there is room for causes like saving the environment and hiring competent individuals who add diversity to organizations. However, when it is forced upon society through coercion, it doesn’t always turn out as rosy as intended. I like to think it’s better to look at where government action is causing the problem and eliminating that before turning to coercive action.

  • APH

    They reject evolution (Only super-human “intelligent design” can devise an economy; adaptive markets are cruel frauds.)

    That quote is very insightful.

    I agree there are many open-minded progressives. I encourage them to open their minds to the value of markets. Just as fundamentalist Christians should open their mind to evolutionary concepts. They are so similar in concept.

    I think there is room for causes like saving the environment and hiring competent individuals who add diversity to organizations. However, when it is forced upon society through coercion, it doesn’t always turn out as rosy as intended. I like to think it’s better to look at where government action is causing the problem and eliminating that before turning to coercive action.

  • Bill Nelson

    I would still contend that true progressives cannot be open-minded. Put another way, an open-minded person would need to judge matters on a case-by-case basis. And progressives (or any other people with a “cause”), would, I think, have their minds already made up. Or, as is usually the case, their minds are made up for them.

    If a fundamentalist Christian rejects the Book of Genesis, then he is no longer a fundamentalist Christian. So, I think what you’re getting at (?) is a desire for progressives to drop their religion. I don’t think you can sway the True Believers, but there are people who might be open to new ideas.

    It might be a petty semantic point, but that is why I the phrase “people with tentatively-held progressive views” as opposed to “progressives”.

    I also reject the very vernacular of “diversity” and “environmentalism”. Diversity always refers to biology (skin color, gender, etc.) and I would like to know: Who exactly is not in favor of clean air anyway?

    The day progressives insist on white Seventh Day Adventists teaching their children is when I’ll accept their sincerity about diversity. Or, how about some retail “diversity” including Wal-Mart? Or labor “diversity” that allows employees to not join existing unions? Or…housing “diversity” that would “embrace” (The Times likes using that word) the right of people to knock down brownstones and replace them with hideous split levels? Vehicular diversity with Smart Cars and Chevy Suburbans? And so forth…

  • Bill Nelson

    I would still contend that true progressives cannot be open-minded. Put another way, an open-minded person would need to judge matters on a case-by-case basis. And progressives (or any other people with a “cause”), would, I think, have their minds already made up. Or, as is usually the case, their minds are made up for them.

    If a fundamentalist Christian rejects the Book of Genesis, then he is no longer a fundamentalist Christian. So, I think what you’re getting at (?) is a desire for progressives to drop their religion. I don’t think you can sway the True Believers, but there are people who might be open to new ideas.

    It might be a petty semantic point, but that is why I the phrase “people with tentatively-held progressive views” as opposed to “progressives”.

    I also reject the very vernacular of “diversity” and “environmentalism”. Diversity always refers to biology (skin color, gender, etc.) and I would like to know: Who exactly is not in favor of clean air anyway?

    The day progressives insist on white Seventh Day Adventists teaching their children is when I’ll accept their sincerity about diversity. Or, how about some retail “diversity” including Wal-Mart? Or labor “diversity” that allows employees to not join existing unions? Or…housing “diversity” that would “embrace” (The Times likes using that word) the right of people to knock down brownstones and replace them with hideous split levels? Vehicular diversity with Smart Cars and Chevy Suburbans? And so forth…

  • DBM

    Bill, before I address your statement could you clarify if you are addressing religious progressives or political progressives? If you are lumping the 2 together there is a pretty serious conflict of beliefs between the two groups.
    And are you serious in your statement that recycling is a pointless ritual?

  • DBM

    Bill, before I address your statement could you clarify if you are addressing religious progressives or political progressives? If you are lumping the 2 together there is a pretty serious conflict of beliefs between the two groups.
    And are you serious in your statement that recycling is a pointless ritual?

Meta