Thursday, April 30, 2015

Sweet, sweet privilege

I'm over at Anything Peaceful talking about the alarming powers that have been amassed by maple syrup growers in Quebec. The story is a great foil to talk about the consequences to civil liberties and secure property of abandoning the rule of law for legal privileges.
The Federation estimates that only 75% of producers support its fixed prices, but it has the legal power to strong-arm the 25% who don’t. Dissenting producers don’t — can’t — have the same rights under the law if it’s to be enforced. Without equal rights under the law, there cannot be secure rights to property. 
One rebellious seller remarks that since he defied the Federation, “They can come into my house anytime they want.” Perhaps that’s why producers in Ontario and New Brunswick, who still benefit from the price supports, have declined to join Quebec’s Federation.
How did this happen? Quebec producers sought legal privileges for themselves by organizing into the Federation. Now that that privilege exists, it’s been seized not only by maple syrup producers, but by a specific contingent who benefit most from it. Special powers, once created, benefit the especially powerful.
Check out the whole post here!

Monday, March 30, 2015

Earth Hour, washing machines, and fighting poverty

I missed Earth Hour this past weekend. I meant to share Hans Rosling's magic washing machine to mark the occasion.

We must remember the incredible, liberating power that electricity has. While we should try to find more efficient ways to use and produce it, our time would be best spent thinking of the truly poor and of how to expand electricity use around the globe, rather than playing at poverty for an hour once a year. The reward will be more people, especially women, freed from poverty to think of the best ways to produce and use energy and to improve our lives in ways we haven't yet imagined.

Saturday, March 28, 2015

What do the NSA and the Ithaca College Student Government Association have in common?

Edward Snowden blew the whistle on NSA spying in part because of his belief that the ability to speak freely and explore ideas is crucial to becoming the person that you want to be - and had allowed him to become the person he wanted to be. He believes that NSA spying (in addition to being illegal, immoral, and having the potential to start accidental wars) chills the process of discovering, trying, adopting, and discarding ideas.

Keeping this in mind might help to explain to those to whom it's not obvious why it's troubling to see students embracing the idea of chilling uncomfortable or what they deem to be offensive speech. Reason reports that the Ithaca College Student Government Association is attempting to create an Internet-based system for reporting and tracking microaggressions on campus.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Immigrants aren't oranges.

An exceptional piece arguing for more open immigration in today's New York Times;
Few of us are calling for the thing that basic economic analysis shows would benefit nearly all of us: radically open borders.
And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the ­most ­settled fact in economics. A recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists could not find a single one who rejected the proposition. (There is one notable economist who wasn’t polled: George Borjas of Harvard, who believes that his fellow economists underestimate the cost of immigration for low-­skilled natives. Borjas’s work is often misused by anti-immigration activists, in much the same way a complicated climate-­science result is often invoked as “proof” that global warming is a myth.) Rationally speaking, we should take in far more immigrants than we currently do. 
So why don’t we open up? The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else. It’s an understandable assumption. After all, with other types of market transactions, when the supply goes up, the price falls. If there were suddenly a whole lot more oranges, we’d expect the price of oranges to fall or the number of oranges that went uneaten to surge. 
But immigrants aren’t oranges. It might seem intuitive that when there is an increase in the supply of workers, the ones who were here already will make less money or lose their jobs. Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones. Immigrants increase the size of the overall population, which means they increase the size of the economy. Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person leaving school and entering the job market; countries should become poorer as they get larger. In reality, of course, the opposite happens.
Read the whole thing here - it does a great job of going through and giving the arguments against the common economic arguments against more open borders.

Monday, March 16, 2015


On one of the most important policy issues in the world is Open Borders. To that end:
Freedom of movement is a basic liberty that governments should respect and protect unless justified by extenuating circumstances. This extends to movement across international boundaries.

International law and many domestic laws already recognise the right of any individual to leave his or her country. This right may only be circumscribed in extreme circumstances, where threats to public safety or order are imminent.

We believe international and domestic law should similarly extend such protections to individuals seeking to enter another country. Although there may be times when governments should treat foreign nationals differently from domestic citizens, freedom of movement and residence are fundamental rights that should only be circumscribed when the situation absolutely warrants.

The border enforcement status quo is both morally unconscionable and economically destructive. Border controls predominantly restrict the movement of people who bear no ill intentions. Most of the people legally barred from moving across international borders today are fleeing persecution or poverty, desire a better job or home, or simply want to see the city lights.

The border status quo bars ordinary people from pursuing the life and opportunity they desire, not because they lack merit or because they pose a danger to others. Billions of people are legally barred from realising their full potential and ambitions purely on the basis of an accident of birth: where they were born. This is both a drain on the economic and innovative potential of human societies across the world, and indefensible in any order that recognises the moral worth and dignity of every human being.

We seek legal and policy reforms that will reduce and eventually remove these bars to movement for billions of ordinary people around the world. The economic toll of the modern restrictive border regime is vast, the human toll incalculable. To end this, we do not need a philosopher’s utopia or a world government. As citizens and human beings, we only demand accountability from our own governments for the senseless immigration laws that they enact in our name. Border controls should be minimised to only the extent required to protect public health and security. International borders should be open for all to cross, in both directions.
Add your name to the list of signatories by emailing, with professional and academic affiliations, if appropriate.

Tuesday, March 03, 2015

I [Don't] Side With...

My top match is what makes the I Side With graphic, but it's not why I want to post this. I wanted to post this because of my 4th/5th best match: the Conservative Party of Canada (tied with the Bloc, outpacing the Greens, Communists, and Christian Heritage Party). Other classically liberal friends are posting similar results.

I have lots of friends who support Canada's Conservative Party, and a long time ago I used to be a supporter. So I have heard Conservatives talk for years about how libertarians and classical liberals are just ultra-committed, politically impractical Conservatives who will never realise the world that we want*, and if we want to be practical, or when we finally come around, we will vote Conservative.

Sorry, my friends on the right, but as I've been saying for years: that's just not the case. If I decide to get practical and go to the polls, I'll be voting for your opposition.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

A negative vote for affirmative action.

Others have written, and written well, arguments for libertarians to embrace the feminist position. The qualms we have with socialist feminism are with its socialism, not its feminism. Alas, the discourse between left-feminists and liberals is not as developed as the discourse that we have with 'the right'.

And so I recently found myself dissatisfied with my own argument against affirmative action as a solution to unequal treatment of women in the workforce, though I thought I agreed with my conclusions. The argument that came to mind without much thought was:
Affirmative action attempts to correct an injustice, but it introduces new ones in the process. It disadvantages applicants who aren't targeted and treats women as though they can't succeed on their own merits. What’s needed to address this problem is societal change of gendered expectations and an insistence that laws consistently promote equality rather than special privilege for either side.
But what if your main concern isn't the presence of any injustice, but the correction a specific injustice? In this case, does liberalism come up short in the quest for a more equal workforce?

Happily, this sort of thing motivates better thinking. After giving the problem the thought it deserves, I don't think affirmative action deserves a liberal endorsement, and here's why:

First, the problem of discrimination in the workplace is not as big as it’s often made out to be. Steve Horwitz’s video on the gender-wage gap explains that women aren't paid as little as 75 cents for each dollar that men are paid for the same work, but are choosing less lucrative occupations and making different choices about their work/life balance. For the reasons that women make these choices, they continue to be underrepresented in many high-earning jobs. That's a different sort of problem, and the one that affirmative action (AA) aims to solve.

Let’s assume that we can design a program that will get women into the jobs they're failing to secure now, and will be rolled back seamlessly once equality is achieved. If such a program can correct society's attitudes towards women, perhaps it's a compromise that pragmatic liberals ought to consider.

AA programs in schools have not performed as desired: they have not resulted in a reduced need for support for black students to secure spots over time, and they did not result in more diverse campuses than 'colour blind' regimes.  Though the policies are intended to foster acceptance and tolerance, they can help perpetuate stereotypes and spur accusations of ‘reverse racism’. I can't think of a compelling reason that either workplaces or schools are exceptional, so I believe our expectations should be similar and we should be skeptical of claims that AA can solve problems caused by discrimination in the workforce that it hasn't in schools.

AA may be successful in catapulting women into management jobs in which men have been willing to work long hours, but it cannot change the expectations that come with the job (the long hours), nor the societal expectations for women (that they act as primary caregivers for children). Placing a woman into a job without changing these expectations puts the cart before the horse. It does not overcome the pressure on her to choose between family and career or the associated guilt.

If a woman is awarded a position because of AA, she was not the most qualified candidate (otherwise, she would have been awarded it without the policy). If she is more motivated by societal norms than the norms of the job, she is unlikely to meet the expectations of her position. AA sets her up to fail, and the stereotypes the policy aims to overcome (that women 'can't handle' that sort of work) to ring true. If the organization is forced to change the nature of the job to accommodate a female appointment without changing social norms, this has the same effect, and we should expect it to result in a drop in pay since the work ceases to be equal.

If she is qualified, the presence of AA may mean that the woman to whom a job is awarded will battle the charge that she didn't earn her spot. Shortcomings, real or perceived, may be disproportionately attributed to her gender, again contrary to the intentions of the policy. This battle may be won if she conforms to the norms of the job and produces exceptional work, but as Steve's video points out, making those choices already solves the problem.

Even if we assume away the unintended consequences for individuals, success in correcting disparities in outcome are bound to be recognized, at least in part, as the success of the program rather than the success of women in overcoming biases and discrimination. So long as the program is credited, women will not be able to claim, or even know the extent of, their victory.

Finally, our original assumption is a big one. Institutions are unlikely to be designed perfectly. Instead, their design will be subject to the social pressures that have resulted in the discrimination they're intended to correct. And once instituted, AA creates a vested interest (women who believe that they can secure jobs more easily because of the policy) that makes it difficult to reverse, regardless of whether it is successful or still needed, meaning that we may be left with needless discrimination, even if the original program was justified.

When there is injustice, the idea that a policy can solve the problem is appealing, but it's always more complicated than that. Even if a policy is merely ineffective, it may give the impression that something is being done and more action isn't needed. (This attitude may be partly to blame for a general sense of apathy and reluctance to acknowledge problems of discrimination today.)

What can feminists do, then? First, let's know what success has looked like in the past - the history of economic progress and liberation in the family and of women specifically within the market and society are important stories that we should be able to tell. Peacefully call out injustice - don't make excuses for it. Build something better – for instance, women succeeding in new work environments, like telecommuting and contract-based self employment, have the potential to be major stereotype busters. And don't settle for someone who makes gender an issue in relationship and household decisions. (Why would you want to when you realize what that says about them? Don't make excuses!)

That's the path to real change, not lip service or feel-good slogans. That's what matters, and we shouldn't settle for less.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

OK, #LetsTalk.

For three #BellLetsTalk days in a row, I've wanted to write something. I think it’s a good initiative. I'm a big believer in the power of talking (and writing) to not only help overcome personal mental health challenges, but to fight the misconceptions around an issue that affects more people than many know or acknowledge. But it's not as easy to write something as it might sound.

I wish I could tell you all my whole story, but my story has become something more private than I ever expected it to be. Not something to just toss out there. Maybe one day I'll find the words to share it all, but for this year, I can tell you three things that I wish more people realized about mental health:

  • Mental health is not binary.
Mental health gets treated like something you have or you don't. I've met people who think that someone who's in therapy is someone who can't keep it together - the therapy is proof that something is 'wrong'. Meanwhile, when someone has a breakdown, we 'never saw it coming'! They seemed to have it together, but only because they didn't tell us what was going on.

Stop being surprised. For most people, keeping a struggle with mental health private is a way of feeling like it's under control and a way of avoiding judgement. Often hard times can be managed with proactive coping mechanisms, or with the help of medications that you might never know about, but that doesn't mean they're not there. It's a damned shame that more people don't feel comfortable coming forward to build coping mechanisms and support networks until things fall apart.

Not every physical illness requires us to go to the doctor or the hospital to survive. Let’s stop acting like the only mental health struggles that count are the ones that require a major intervention. Then we can start to acknowledge how varied mental health experiences are, how common they are, and how often they go unrecognized because of the stigmas we’ve built around them.

  • Helping someone is easier, and harder, than you think. 
For many people struggling right now, one of the biggest challenges is feeling out of control of their life. It feels like events and emotions are conspiring to keep control out of reach, and the further it drifts, the harder it is to grasp again.

We tend to treat people who seek help as though they are forfeiting part of their decision-making ability, as though they’re no longer capable of handling important decisions. But someone seeking help has already taken an especially tough decision and first step down a path to recovery. That path can be a long, hard one, and not everyone reaches the end. But imagine how much harder it is when taking that first step forward leads to everyone treating you as though you’ve stumbled three back instead.

Trying to help someone who is struggling with personal demons can make us feel powerless – but there’s something you can do: Be a good friend. Have a healthy relationship. Insist on it - don't give in to unhealthy habits. Give the person you want to support the type of support that you would want. Offer help when it’s requested, but let them make their own decisions – those are the ones that will stick. Give them something to compare the craziness in their life to, and let them choose the better path.

  • If you want to help, help yourself first. 
This sound surprisingly selfish, but trust me, and remember that those offering support can - probably will - need support themselves.

Trying to help someone struggling through mental health issues can take everything out of you. Some people need to find their footing before they can set the right boundaries for a good friendship, no matter how badly that's what they'd like to do. And trying to help until that happens can be incredibly frustrating: Because you care, you wish you could do something. So if things get worse, you start to panic and feel as though there's something you could have done. But wishing it doesn't make it true. You can't take on the hardest stuff, even for those you love the most, no matter how much you wish you could, no matter how much they'd like to let you.

And when you think about it, wanting to take all of the hard stuff on for someone else is perverse and patronizing - no one wants to be treated as a child who needs to be taken by the hand. Everyone wants to be able to stand on their own.

It feels selfish to take time for yourself when you know someone who's struggling, but it’s more selfish for a friend to take everything you've got. Be a good friend, but insist on the same for yourself. And take the time you need to take care of yourself. You’re worth it. Realizing just how worth it you are is one of the most important things any of us can do for our own health, and showing someone else that it's OK to make time for yourself is can be one of the best things you can do for them.

And to all those who are fighting to get by: You can find a way to do it. And you're not alone. Please, it doesn't have to be out loud for all to hear, but let's talk.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

A story of Kakha Bendukidze

Last week the world lost Kakha Bendukidze. I didn't know him, but I think the stories of people who make the world a freer place go untold too often, so I will tell the only story that I know about him. I heard it from Tom G. Palmer, a living hero of mine. The story is not long, but it will always stick with me:

Kakha Bendukidze was a Georgian-born businessman, public figure, and reformer. He returned to Georgia after a corrupt and brutal regime was overturned and aided in dramatic liberal reforms. To show the end of the days of police brutality and a return to a humane police force, he tore down all of the stations that had become symbols of oppression to the people who lived under the regime of President Eduard Shevardnadze and replaced them with police stations with transparent walls.

From what I know, Kakha spent the better part of the past year working to try to recover and protect the freedom of people in Ukraine.

It can seem easiest to do nothing, unless you are the type of person who can't stand it. From everything that I can tell, Kakha Bendukidze couldn't stand doing nothing when doing good was an option.

I will remember his story.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

#MyOttawa: There's something about The Hill

Photo as posted from Wayne Cuddington / Ottawa Citizen
Ottawa. It's not my favourite city, I gripe about it sometimes. But there's something cool about how Canadians 'do' government. It's a different place from, say, Washington, DC, and the Parliament Buildings and their grounds are different from the White House.

Before yesterday, if I'd wanted to, I could walk up to the Parliament buildings, lean against the sandstone and try to identify all the carved sculptures (the most famous being the beaver) above the door through which I've walked many times, and through which I'm fairly sure Michael Zehaf-Bibeau entered yesterday, armed with a rifle and aiming to continue what he'd started by killing unarmed Cpl. Nathan Cirillo at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier a few minutes before.

I suspect that many people in Ottawa are finding, as I am, that the open nature of Parliament and its grounds holds symbolic importance that we'd not taken stock of before yesterday. The lawn on Parliament Hill really is 'our space', and our space is welcoming. In the winter you can make snow angels on the lawn. In the summer it's open on Wednesdays for yoga. On a sunny, breezy, summer day you could have a picnic on Parliament Hill. Why not?

The Hill isn't important because it's where the Canadian government works and sits (though it's that, too) but because it is, in a lot of ways, representative of what makes living in Canada pretty great. It's relatively open, uniquely beautiful, and plucky in a way that makes you happy to be from here. It is not a kitschy tourist attraction that can be sealed off, locked down and treated as off-limits in the way that some, especially those who don't live here, are claiming it should be without changing its nature.

I work about three blocks from the War Memorial three days a week, and was in a meeting across the street from my office when the shootings took place. From the second story of the World Exchange Plaza, I watched SWAT teams running, armed, through the streets. When I tried to look toward Parliament, I was shooed from the windows by security. After a couple of hours, we were allowed to cross the street to return to our office, and a few hours later we left, but could only do so through the South door. I walked West (the East was blocked) and looked toward Parliament Hill to see police at every intersection and no one on the street. The way was blocked. The space was not open. Not even when I first moved here did the city seem so alien.

Zehaf-Bibeau was a coward and a criminal who was handled professionally and effectively by Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vicker, the RCMP, and Ottawa Police. He frightened us all as we waited for word from friends and loved ones under lock down, but no one I've spoken to has been anything but grateful of how first responders treated us while it was in effect. While there are certainly improvements that can be made, such as to security for military guards and how the Parliament Buildings are accessed from the outside, I hope that as the investigation wraps up we do not satisfy a murderer by elevating him to someone capable of changing the generally open, and as we saw yesterday, prepared nature of Ottawa and Parliament Hill. Not, as Andrew Coyne said so well, at the cost of our national spirit.

Ottawa was strong yesterday. We shouldn't react, and we shouldn't be treated, as though we were weak.

Update: Margaret Wente and Scott Gilmore have good columns on this, too.

I'd like to thanks friends who also live or have lived in Ottawa, work or have worked on Parliament Hill, and were under lockdown in different circumstances than I yesterday for their feedback in writing this post. 

Sunday, September 21, 2014

"A curious but understandable thing happened in the eighteenth century. By then, the cities of Europeans had done well enough by them, mediating between them and many harsh aspects of nature, so that something became popularly possible which previously had been a rarity - sentimentalization of nature, or at any rate, sentimentalization of a rustic or a barbarian relationship with nature[...]

In real life, barbarians (and peasants) are the least free of men - bound by tradition, ridden by caste, fettered by superstitions, riddled by suspicion and foreboding of whatever is strange. "City air makes free," was the medieval saying, when city air literally did make free the runaway serf. City air still makes free the runaways from company towns, from plantations, from factory-farms, from migrant picker routes, from mining villages, from one-class suburbs.

Owing to the mediation of cities, it became popularly possible to regard "nature" as benign, ennobling, and pure, and by extension to regard "natural man" (take your pick of how "natural") as so too. Opposed to all this fictionalized purity, nobility and beneficence, cities, not being fictions, could be considered as seats of malignancy and - obviously - the enemies of nature. And once people begin looking at nature as if it were a nice big St. Bernard dog for the children, what could be more natural than the desire to bring this sentimental pet into the city too, so the city might get some nobility, purity, and beneficence by association?"

- Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Chapter 22, "The kind of problem a city is"

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Activists' privilege and romanticizing famine foods

As a wacky foodie, I am more apt than most to spend the resources (mostly time) to make unusual ingredients taste good, though I won't go to the lengths that restaurants like Noma will. But I understand that this is a luxury, rather than a practical skill. There's a reason tasty preparations of many wild foods are so expensive to come by: they need more resources. That is why it is more expensive. Insisting upon increased reliance on such food will never be the key to lowering the price of food, to sustainability or to increasing accessibility of food for the most desperate. 

I wish that (normally affluent) activists who suggest that people with the most tenuous access to food divert their resources in this direction could see how insensitive they're being. Even the failure to realize that the time it takes to garden, let alone to forage, clean, and boil lichens for three hours, is prohibitively expensive to many people shows how out of touch they are.

That's why Pierre Desrochers is right on the money in this article:
"Although wild ingredients might be free, the attendant foraging and preparation costs are significant. What they would probably find most amazing, however, is that what they typically knew as ‘famine foods’ are now commanding a significant premium over plentiful and convenient things that actually taste good rather than ‘wild’. 
Unfortunately, for many of our remote ancestors, the absence of effective transportation, such as railroads and container ships, meant that they had no choice but to survive on a local diet and, in the process, put all their agricultural eggs into one geographical basket. This was always a recipe for disaster."
Read the whole thing here.

Sunday, September 07, 2014

The past without rose-scented kerchiefs.

Those who worry about the pollution and noise that they imagine to be new to cities since the advent and proliferation of car travel have forgotten the horse. Much like a reliance on a home-grown food suppy, we can romanticize and enjoy horses as we do precisely because we are wealthy enough that we no longer rely upon them. Since I first read this excerpt published in The Death and Life of Great American Cities from a description of London in 1890, I've not been able to shake it. The past is lovely seen through the rose-coloured glasses (and scented cloths) of those who never had to live it. 
"The Strand in those days... was the throbbing heart of the people's essential London. Hedged by a maze of continuous alleys and courts, the Strand was fronted by numbers of little restaurants whose windows vaunted exquisite feeding; taverns, dives, oyster and wine bars, ham and beef shops; and small shops marketing a lively variety of curious or workaday things all standing in rank, shoulder to shoulder, to fill the spaces between its many theatres... But the mud! [A euphemism.] And the noise! And the smell! All these blemishes were [the] mark of [the] horse... 
The whole of London's crowded wheeled traffic - which in parts of the City was at times dense beyond movement - was dependent on the horse: lorry, wagon, bus, hansom and "growler," and coaches and carriages and private vehicles of all kinds, were appendages to horses. Meredith refers to the "anticipatory stench of its cab-stands" on railway approach to London: but the characteristic aroma - for the nose recognized London with gay excitement - was of stables, which were commonly of three or four storeys with inclined ways zigzagging up the faces of them; [their] middens kept the castiron filigree chandeliers, that glorified the reception rooms of upper and lower middle class homes throughout London, encrusted with dead flies and, in late summer, veiled with jiving clouds of them. 
A more assertive mark of the horse was the mud that, despite the activities of a numerous corps of red-jacketed boys who dodged among wheels and hooves with pan and brush in service to iron bins at the pavement-edge, either flooded the streets with churnings of "pea soup" that at times collected in pools overbrimming the kerbs, and at others covered the road-service as with axle grease or bran-laden dust to the distraction of the wayfarer. In the first case, the swift-moving hansom or gig would fling sheets of such soup - where not intercepted by trousers or skirts - completely across the pavement, so that the frontages of the Strand throughout its length had an eighteen-inch plinth of mud-parge thus imposed upon it. The pea-soup condition was met by wheeled "mud-carts" each attended by two ladlers clothed as for Icelandic seas in thigh boots, oilskins collared to the chin, and sou'westers sealing in the back of the neck. Splash Ho! The foot passenger now gets the mud [still a euphemism] in his eye! The axle-grease condition was met by horse-mechanized brushes and travellers in the small hours found fire-hoses washing away residues... 
And after the mud the noise, which, again endowed by the horse, surged like a mighty heart-beat in the central districts of London's life. It was a thing beyond all imaginings. The streets of workaday London were uniformly paved in "granite" sets... and the hammering of a multitude of iron-shod hairy heels upon [them], the deafening, side-drum tatoo of tyred wheels jarring from the apex of one set to the next like sticks dragging along a fence; the creaking and groaning and chirping and rattling of vehicles, light and heavy, thus maltreated; the jangling of chain harness and the clanging or jingling of every other conceivable thing else, augmented by the shrieking and bellowings called for from those of God's creatures who desired to impart information or proffer a request vocally - raised a din that... is beyond conception. It was not any such paltry thing as noise. It was an immensity of sound..." (pp. 341-342, December 1992 Vintage Books edition)

Friday, August 29, 2014

Tools of power and power over tools

My friends on the left often advocate the use of public powers that have been used (or were originally intended) to suppress causes they would have sympathised with. Examples include occupational licensing, closed shop union legislation, the minimum wage, and urban planning.

The reconstruction of Paris between 1853 and 1869 by Haussmann and Napoleon was designed to control uprisings by breaking up and moving working-class neighbourhoods and facilitating troop movement though the city, but it also aimed to make Paris manageable for bureaucrats, planners, businesses, and tax collectors, and more comfortable for the bourgeoisie.

The intent of city plans is to make a city and its neighbourhoods understandable to those tasked with administering them. Poor neighbourhoods with complex streets, housing arrangements, and social relationships are likely administered by a college-educated planner who, odds are, has very little experience with how the poor live.

Asymmetrical access to power includes the power to create and implement plans, resulting in plans that demolish poor (though, according to their residents, functioning) minority neighbourhoods like Black Bottom in Detroit or Africville in Halifax, far more frequently than the neighbourhoods of better enfranchised residents.

The hope is that tools like urban planning can be used for good, but the ability to turn them back to their original intent shouldn't be ignored given the state's history of structural discrimination in support of the status quo.

This post was inspired by my ongoing reading of Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed