Or perhaps that Greenfield should be exiled because of the psychological externality that his shallow, annoying and infantile presence creates among others?

John, I didnt spot your comment earlier

So did you spot a black cat and walk under a few ladders on your way to work?

I’m a firm believer that people should have to live with the consequences of thier democratic decisions. So, if the people of Camden use existing (weakened) property laws to ‘keep the Muslims out’, then they should bear the benefits and burdens of their decision; if they benefit (say, for example, the Muslims are generally poor quality economic contributors to the area in question, in line with Mexicans in the US – more here – http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Immigration.html), then they will do well and can be expected to try to sell their anti-immigration agenda to the rest of us). If, however, the rest of us do well from Muslim immigration and Camden loses, then if they wish to inflict their group mentality on the rest of us, and they lose, then they should bear the consequences of their loss.

Alternatively, don’t give groups this level of control over private property rights. In days gone by, the law prohibited only ‘equitable waste’, which is lawyer’s code for ‘wanton destruction’. If you empower groups, expect groups to abuse the power in question. Sometimes they will save the trees. Other times they will keep the Muslims out. Deal with it.

The process of defining, awarding, transferring and enforcing different kinds of title are as much subject to the rule of law as anything else. The stark choice between (a) property rights and (b) government by plebiscite (i.e. tyranny of the majority) exists only in your minds. When Sam boasts of being ‘the only one who is being consistent’, he assumes that everyone should see the issue in terms of the same crude dichotomy that he does, and apply one rule or the other. You used the word simple, but simplistic is the one that springs to my mind.

Now, of course, it’s always open to you to argue that certain kinds of property rights are economically more efficient than others, and therefore as a society we ought to work toward enshrining these in legislation. But it doesn’t follow that any arrangement which, in the meantime, falls short of your particular blueprint, is somehow mob rule.

Shorter Tim Q: If you have no money you have no rights.

Tho I hafta say, do you really think Yobbo is such a cost-effective target for this kinda satire?

It’s simple. Don’t want a muslim school? Buy the land and do something else with it. Want to protect the platypus? Buy the land and make it a platypus reserve. Push your ideas by the advocacy of big governmenrt interference in peoples lives, and live with the consequences when a majority of people in some area holding views signifigantly different to yours use the government to advocate ideas you don’t like, block things you believe in and discriminate against groups you support.

If I want to own the sunlight falling on my house, I’ll buy the land next door, or pay the owners for a caveat over the title stoping someone blocking my light. Or if I don’t want to waste the money, I’ll realise it isn’t my right to whinge about it.

And further, when it comes to environmental risks, such as to animals or fragile ecosystems, then how are property rights supposed to protect them? Platypuses can’t buy property. Or in your world, does being able to afford to buy land automatically grant you the right to destroy whatever existing lifeforms are dependent on it?

As for your abbatoir example – I accept it may be the case that simply going ahead and building the school will be the best cure for the xenophobia of the residents. But where schoolchildren are involved there are additional risks, and the council should have a responsibility to ensure that residents aren’t going to take their grudges against muslims out on innocent kids.

Xenophobia?. Your understanding of this concept is as misguided as Andrew Bartlett’s understanding of “bigotry” of which, he himself is, of course, the personification. Like many others here, you would do well to bone up on the differences between xenophobia and Islamophobia. We can surely do better than the ditzy conflation of all these concepts.

Xenophobes have become more savvy since.

You wanted Beazley to replace Ray on 60 minutes?

Heh.

they would have had to rename it 120 minutes.

I know. And the dodgy disability-pension bludgers chased down the street with a camera would have gotten away every time.

A similar thing happened about 30 years ago in Katanning, very near my hometown.

It was around the time that exporting Halal meat was becoming big business, the local abattoir needed to have real muslims to slaughter the meat in order to export it. So they imported them from the Cocos Islands.

The local rednecks jumped up and down saying “we dont want no moslems” blah blah blah. I am sure at that time 90% of them didn’t know what a muslim was and what they really didn’t want was black people.

The people in the abbatoir basically said “well, we don’t really give a shit what you want, we are running a business and will do what we want”.

30 years on and the town has a thriving muslim community and a frickin’ huge mosque to go with them.

http://www.katanning.net/media/gallery/image67.jpg

You wanted Beazley to replace Ray on 60 minutes?

It would never have happened, chiefly because they would have had to rename it “120 minutes”.

My main objection is with the council, for not obviously making a real and sincere effort to bring the (presumably Muslim) developers and residents together with the hope of fostering a bit more tolerance and understanding.

That wouldn’t be necessary if we had strong property rights, because people wouldn’t (rightly) think that if they jump up and down hard enough, they can keep out people they don’t like.

Shorter Yobbo: People are stupid. Except me of course.

That’s not what I’m saying NPOV. The point is that there is no justification for people who have nothing to do with you and no knowledge of your business or project, being able to vote on what you can and cannot do with your own property.

If the school is unpopular it will fail. If it is popular it will be a great addition to the town. Either way what the city council thinks is irrelevant. They should stick to maintaining sidewalks and putting up stop signs.

If people in town don’t like Muslims they can learn to live with it or piss off.

All I said is that it may risky to build a school where students are likely to be subject to significiant (not necessarily violent) expressions of xenophobia from nearby residents. However, the risks are moderate and manageable, and xenophobia is curable, so no, it doesn’t mean I think the school shouldn’t be built.

That would be a truly unique objection to raise, N.

I’d pay good money to hear that one read out in council meetings.

My main objection is with the council, for not obviously making a real and sincere effort to bring the (presumably Muslim) developers and residents together with the hope of fostering a bit more tolerance and understanding. Muslims will eventually just be seen like any other migrant group of the past anyway, and I’m sure if the developers came back in 10 or 15 years they’d face little resistance, but if anything can be done to speed up the process, it should be.