[Garibaldi]

How much power should be given to local governments? I'm starting to think maybe zoning, urban planning, & mantaining quality property are some of the powers that should be given to local governments. Also, maybe some roads should be government owned? Surely people would voluntarily fund for vital, public roads?

And what about Parental rights? I don't believe people under 16 are wise enough to live comparable to full-grown adults, I think the parents should have power to regulate and prohibit actions that would put the rights of their children at roisks. They can allow or not allow their child to smoke marijuana or drink alcohol, or work or to get a lincense. However, they can not force them to smoke marijuana, drink alcohol, work, or get a drivining lincense. Speaking of driving licenses, that should be something else possible as a power of local governments.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Local government's role is to protect people from the initiation of force, and nothing else. All roads ought to be privately owned, which eliminates the need for the issuance of driver's licenses.

People under 16 are surely dependents of their parents, but their parents ought to regulate their behavior, not the government.

[Garibaldi]

I agree with you, dao, on it being the parent's job to regulate a child's behavior and not the governments. However, if a local government is privatly funded, can't citizens who believe a new road would raise their profits or property value do so through the local government? And what about run-down property which destroys the value of other property?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Why can't those citizens band together and pay a construction company to build that road? In many rural communities, groups of citizens own their own rail lines (to get produce to market).

Also, you have no right to property valuation. As such, you have no right to force others to make improvements to their property.

[Garibaldi]

Ok, I conceed the argument of roads; you proved to me that it's unnecesary. However, your second paragraph was confusing. You said we don't have the right to valuate property, but we do have the right to force others to improve their property?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Reread my post.

[Randomizer]

Most infrastructure should be funded locally, probably with varying taxes to that end and corresponding efforts invested in different places, however there are a few requirements similar to those that are imposed on private land. For example if there is a road going through the town, the town should maintain the road unobstructed and in good condition, particularily if this road for geographical reasons is the only possible way between some points in which case this way becomes similar to a natural resource.

[Garibaldi]

Dao, I understand your point; however, one person may destroy the value of anothers property by destroying the value of their's. at the same time, they doin't lose value so readily since the neighbor hood surrounding them remains the same.

Also, what about Zoning? Small towns need to plan in order to increase their worth, undoubtably. For example, in my town Walmart's trying to come in. An old shop(Ames) sits run down, but Walmart bought a bunch of land in an area reserved for residency. We also have factories that don't run all over town. Should we keep letting businesses, like wlmart, build on residentual land when there's a ready source of commerfcial zones for them?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Zoning is a direct violation of private property rights. Towns do NOT need to plan in order to increase economic viability. Zoning serves to prevent people from improving their land, and it often causes high crime, but creating, large tracts of residential land--land that is usually dark and quiet at night.