As younger generations grow older and take on adult responsibilities, they will, at some point, struggle with the cost of housing. This year alone, more than 582,000 people in the United States are without a home, with about three in ten people being part of families with children.

Governments today have implemented various policies recommended by different schools of economic thought, predominantly that of the Keynesians, to address the issue of homelessness.

Despite their efforts, the total number of chronically and nonchronically homeless individuals continues to grow. To reduce these numbers would require a phenomenon that appears enigmatic, but there is no enigma. The solution deals with the most fundamental economic law of Austrolibertarianism and its satisfaction by abstraction: human action. With this foundational lens, the removal of zoning laws is derived to address homelessness in the United States and abroad.

The laws of supply and demand are known by all who have a basic understanding of economics, but what is less known is that they are praxeological laws. Praxeology is the study of the implications logically derived from the action axiom. This foundational axiom posits that “man acts,” and from that statement, all conclusions of praxeology are logically and a priori obtained. Thus, as Ludwig von Mises concludes in his magnum opus, Human Action,

Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.

A priori knowledge and justification are procured without experience, for they are logically derived. Examples include “all bachelors are unmarried” and “two plus two equals four.” The meaning of the word “bachelor,” the state of being unmarried, can be analytically deduced, and an understanding of the addition property and the integer two will result in an answer of four for the equation without having to “experience” it. Moreover, a priori knowledge is a foundation that determines a chain of necessity through deductive claims and noncontradiction. Accordingly, in the case of praxeology, to say man does not act would be contradicted by one doing so (“act” referring to purposeful behavior that employs means to reach a given end). Furthermore, as Murray N. Rothbard writes in his book Economic Controversies, “Since praxeology begins with a true axiom, A, all the propositions that can be deduced from this axiom must also be true. For if A implies B, and A is true, then B must also be true.”

Unlike a hypothesis that must be proven or unproven, a priori statements are true in all possible worlds. Their negation can never be logically valid. It MUST be the case that “there are no square circles” (B) because its negation (“there are square circles”) would violate the law of noncontradiction (A). Similarly, it MUST be the case that if “two plus two equals four” (A) is true, then “four minus two equals two” (B) is true as well.

It is frequently asked, “How can praxeology be applied to the material world if it is only theory?” It is the same with mathematics: by identifying components of abstract models along with their material analogs. This process is called “catallactics,” the application of laws concerning human action to market analysis. The removal of zoning laws to address homelessness is derived from this epistemology.

Zoning laws are specific rules and regulations for pieces of land divided into zones by the government or a municipality. They began with the Los Angeles zoning ordinances of 1904 and the New York City zoning resolution of 1916 and were originally motivated by racism, but they are now believed to help the housing industry. The laws dictate allowable uses of land or property inside zoning districts, meaning certain land can only be used for a predetermined reason, like agriculture. This creates an artificial limitation on the total amount of residential buildings that can be constructed in a given area, thereby leading to an issue where price cannot be brought down by supply.

In other words, they eliminate the houses, apartments, etc. that otherwise could have been built. Consequently, houses become so expensive that they become a hassle to afford for those without a lot of money, which tends to be the case for younger generations trying to find their footing, especially those from marginalized ethnic and racial backgrounds without a trust fund.

The laws of supply and demand were briefly mentioned as the epistemological justification of the suggested policy. The axiom that “man acts” informs this law because to every end there are means that must be implemented. These can come in the form of any given market product that is desired according to man’s intrinsic value hierarchy. Simply put, he desires to buy products that will allow him to accomplish his most desired ends first. The law of demand is, at its core, marginal utility applied to catallactics. Rothbard writes, “All action involves the employment of scarce means to attain the most valued ends. Man has the choice of using the scarce means for various alternative ends, and the ends that he chooses are the ones he values most highly. The less urgent wants are those that remain unsatisfied.”

Of equal importance and magnitude is the law of supply, which states that as the price of a good increases, the amount of that good supplied on the market will also increase and vice versa. It is also derived from praxeology because as the potential utility gained from undertaking an action increases, the likelihood of performing it increases also.

These laws in return tell us what happens with the removal of zoning laws. By limiting the total number of residential buildings that can be constructed, sellers and renters can increase their prices exponentially without fear of having no buyers. Ergo, if demand is high (which tends to be the case in the housing industry because shelter is essential) and supply is not allowed to rise, prices will inflate with people still willing to buy.

There are several counterarguments to nonzoning with the most common being that they promote safety by keeping hazardous activities away from residential and public areas. While this is a valid complaint, there are other ways to do this without feeding a housing crisis—namely, self-regulation via tort law. According to the American Museum of Tort Laws, “Tort law has been called the law of wrongful injuries. It is the law that protects and compensates people who have been injured by the negligence, or recklessness, or intentional acts of wrongdoers.”

An industrialist who chooses to build in residential areas will be liable for any damage incurred by the residents from their activity. Under tort law, it is possible to sue for noise, air, and land pollution, just to name a few. This is the same for unseen effects because it is possible to trace their origins back to an industrialist’s activity. In addition, because there is no state limit to liability, the penalties can be severe. This incentivizes insurance companies to raise their premiums and correctly estimate risks and costs because it is more likely for them to get sued. They are also more inclined to make the developers adopt reasonable safety standards or charge exorbitant premiums because related lawsuits are the largest class of civil litigation. Although this is ex post, meaning the damages have already occurred, developers would want to insure against this liability and operate elsewhere.

It is important to note that other factors do come into play when dealing with homelessness. But as long as man acts (A), affecting supply and demand (B), and A is true, then B must also be true. And if B implies a relationship between zoning laws and homelessness (C), then it must be true as well. Furthermore, the relationship between homelessness and zoning laws is a priori and therefore true in all cases. Thus, we can logically conclude that the downward pressure zoning laws placed on supply limits the accessibility of housing and thereby increases the total number of unsheltered individuals.

To picture a world where people are unable to afford a home is to think of a world with low life expectancy, decreased birth rates, and more unfortunate fates that succeeding generations will be subject to with the continued existence of zoning—a law that hides its perniciousness under the disguise of prosperity.

Taiwo Agbeluyi is a freshman at Divine Savior Holy Angels who loves to learn about Economics and Political Philosophy. She is fascinated by human action and its application. She also likes to apply her analytical skills and creativity to building robots for various challenges and competitions. Taiwo is a curious and ambitious student who strives to make a positive difference in her community and beyond.

Taiwo Agbeluyi | Mises Wire

The post Zoning Laws: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing appeared first on Granite Grok.

Thank you to those who use Gmail and participated in our recent research project. We asked Gmail users who signed up for the Daily Grok if they were getting their emailed newsletter every day. Those who responded were not. Gmail appears to be embargoing our content.

I checked the newsletter plugin send history for the emails provided in each instance. They were being sent every day, but the recipients were not getting them, and they were not in spam. Whitelisting did not help.

I am at a loss for how to proceed. Google doesn’t have to explain itself to me, so all I can do is share what we have found with the world and see if they have the same issue. If you are a center-right new media concern with a newsletter or content that gets emailed, are your Gmail users receiving it?

You’d best ask. I’m sure many are, but then some may not, and I lack the time or resources to pursue this past the following. For those willing to do it, I’d suggest opening a free proton mail account and signing up for the newsletter using that address.

Please.

We rely on increasing traffic to generate ad revenue, above donations, which are many and generous (and we appreciate every dollar) but not enough to cover every expense. Our 2024 budget is not yet fully funded. We can pick at that with increased traffic, which we might get if Google didn’t appear to block access to our newsletter.

We have more than a few folks who only come to the site because of that newsletter. To those folks, please visit the site at least once daily if you are not interested in setting up a separate email to bypass Google’s censorship. We’d appreciate it, and you’d get to read the content you wanted all along.

We will let you know if anything changes about Gmail and our newsletter. If you are a Gmail user getting the newsletter in Gmail, please let us know. Perhaps there’s a “secret handshake” we can share with readers to assist them in resolving the issue.

[Update] A reader has informed me that he used his Hotmail account to subscribe and is not receiving these either. I verified that our application has been sending him the newsletter daily. If I read it correctly, Microsoft owns Hotmail, which is the Windows Outlook mail service with the vestigial @Hotmail extensions for existing users (before 2012). We’ll test this against Outlook and see what happens. As for the reader, he says he is opening a free Protonmail account, and we appreciate that.

The post Is Gmail Blocking Your Email Newsletter, Too!!! [Update] appeared first on Granite Grok.

With all the devastating news about urban crime, drug overdoses, illegal immigration, rampant homelessness, out-of-control budgets, and educational failures, it is encouraging that President Donald Trump has committed his next administration to saving America’s cities.

As Just the News reported, “With the nation’s first primary state as a backdrop, former President Donald Trump took aim Saturday at Democrats’ urban strongholds, vowing to both secure and revitalize blue cities weary from years of violence and economic decay.”

As the outlet reported, President Trump told a crowd in Durham, New Hampshire, “We’re going to rebuild our cities into beacons of hope, safety, and beauty. It will be the greatest investment ever made.”

This is encouraging. All too often, Republicans have neglected our great cities – or been openly hostile toward them because of their Democratic leadership.

Perhaps the most famous example of this was an Oct. 29, 1975 speech in which then-President Gerald Ford explained why he would not help New York City with its fiscal crisis.

The following day, the New York Daily News had a huge page-one headline: “Ford to City: Drop Dead.”

President Ford was philosophically right as a fiscal conservative and federalist, but the political message was devastating for Republicans.

I served with Buffalo Congressman Jack Kemp, who was the most innovative pro-city Republican with whom I have ever worked. Kemp developed a program for enterprise zones to help encourage business development in the poorest parts of cities. Working with civil rights activist Bob Woodson, the two developed a program to allow people in public housing to put in sweat equity and eventually gain ownership of their units. Kemp and Woodson followed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in trying to create an ownership society.

One of the most striking moments in U.S. House debate history was when an outraged Democrat Congressman Barney Frank, who opposed Kemp’s proposal, argued that under the plan, a poor family in New York City might be able to acquire a property worth $1 million in the New York market. It did not seem to occur to Frank that helping poor people become wealthy was a good idea.

President Trump, a product of Queens and Manhattan, understands that we cannot be a great nation if our great cities decay and die. Consider his own words from a speech about saving America’s cities in Reno, Nevada:

“[W]e’re going to indemnify police officers and law enforcement officials throughout the United States from being destroyed by the radical left for taking strong actions on crime. They’re going to be indemnified… Policemen are forced not to do anything when they want to, and under the threat of losing their pension, their house, and their family, they lose everything, and they’re afraid to move. … We’re not going to let that happen anymore.

“In addition, we will take over our horribly-run Washington, DC – and clean up, renovate, and rebuild our Capitol so that it is no longer a nightmare of murder and crime. You see what’s happening. But rather, will become the most beautiful Capitol anywhere in the world. It’s a mess. It’s a filthy, disgusting mess. Our parks will be cleaned, the tents and graffiti, all of these tents and graffiti, right in the middle of the most beautiful parks in the world. Those tents and graffiti will be removed. Slum areas will be demolished and rebuilt to the highest level of architectural elegance. Washington, DC, will become a symbol of beauty, security, freedom, and strength…

“In addition to our Capitol, we are going to rebuild our cities into beacons of hope, safety, and beauty. Better than they have ever been before. We are going to focus on our cities… It will be the greatest investment ever made in these cities. And we will work closely with Democrat leaders. They are all run by Democrats if you can believe it. But we’ll work closely with the Democrat leaders of all these failing places to make sure that this rebuilding will be a lasting and compassionate one. It’ll be a great rebuilding. Safety will again be restored so that our children can go out with their parents, mother, and father and play in the park without being beat up, molested, or shot. Students will be able to walk to school in peace, criminal rates will plummet, and people will long, just long, to move back to the city again.”

The fact that President Trump explicitly included working closely with Democrat leaders is a good step toward making the second Trump administration more bipartisan – but still deeply committed to reform.

This was an encouraging speech for our future and a real commitment to save America’s citizens. It is a good step toward bringing Americans together and healing some of the partisan divisions.

Those who are committed to union incompetence, leftwing extremism, and keeping power will fight against a program to save America’s cities. Most Americans, however, will be excited by the vision of a safe, prosperous, and forward-looking urban future.

I expect the American people will win.

Newt Gingrich | RealClear Wire

The post President Trump’s Plan to Save America’s Cities appeared first on Granite Grok.