A Creative Cloud subscription (in order to make use of CC Libraries) . Here's an FAQ page.
Hey kids, there's a fun new toy in the sandbox!
It's now possible to go from sketchbook to finished artwork in a few clicks.
The top image is of a guy swimming in a lake. The other just two guys talking. I spent literally no time on these but as an example of how to capture abstract shapes from literally anything you can photograph. If you can see it, you can path it!
This next image is a Shape rendering of a still life photo that already existed in my Photos library.
How the title graphic at the top of this post was created using a simple vector shape, plus hand lettering and a background scene photographed with Adobe Shape.
First, I created a pen shape above to contain the title lettering. I started in Illustrator by manually creating a vector shape, then brought that shape into Photoshop, then cut and pasted the layer into Corel Painter. I know all that sounds complicated but I wanted the pen shape to have a textured background and by selecting the black shape in Painter with Auto Select, I could then hide the layer and paint within the selection on a new layer with a pastel brush. I then saved the Painter file as a .psd and opened it back up in Photoshop.
I printed out the pen shape and used it behind a piece of tracing vellum so I knew where to execute my pencil lettering then used a #2 Ticonderoga to draw the letters and didn't worry too much about the minute details. Once I had it the way I wanted it compositionally, I used my iPad Mini and Adobe Shape to capture the vectorized version of the lettering.
It's hard to see in the photo but Shape is zeroing in on the dark areas of the design and displaying those areas in green in the iPad display. You can adjust the level of sensitivity to refine the detail and it also allows you to capture a reversed image. Press the camera-style "shutter release" button and it auto-magically creates a vector file which is then saved to a designated Creative Cloud Library.
Creative Cloud Libraries could be the coolest thing Adobe has come up with in years—if you routinely use more than one application for a project (which I do lots of), you can access artwork you've saved from various projects, text, color swatches, images, stock photos and just drag and drop them into most CC applications. So to create the title illustration above, I opened a new Illustrator file, dragged my lettering vector artwork onto the art board to do a little vector path clean up, although I could have just as easily dragged the same file into Photoshop (the same CC Libraries appear in almost every Adobe app) and used masks and brushes to get rid of unwanted bits and pieces. It all depends on what kind of edits you want to make.
Starting with the same .psd file I opened up from Painter, I added a color layer for a background and dropped my lettering right on top of the pen layer I created in Illustrator.
I intentionally used a setting in Shape that would pick up a lot of the artifacts created by the wrinkly tracing paper and side lighting, which added some "schmutz" around the letters. I edited out 80% of it but left a little in for character.
The background needed some interest so I used Shape again, set up a "scene" and photographed it in order to create some background interest.
I used this layer right over the background color layer, filled it with color and reduced the opacity to help it recede into the background.
Shape also works on pencil/ink line work illustrations. Left is the pencil sketch nearly all inked in, right is the Adobe Shape vector version.
Some extremely famous and talented calligraphers and letterers use a version of this technique for getting their work from sketch to digital canvas. Since my work is usually much less precise and more sketchy and imprecise, this technique suits my style perfectly, and workflow-wise is much more efficient than scanning and using image trace tools. Photographing 2D line work won't pick up the fine detail that a 600 dpi scan will, but that's okay for some projects.
So no, I'm not on the Adobe payroll but I do like to call out a good product when I run across it.
While my first reaction to this tool was definitely "kid in a candy store", I probably won't use it for every project. But used in conjunction with CC Libraries, it's definitely now a permanent resident of my go-to tool box.


Concept drawing [Photoshop] of window with modular panels made & installed separately.
It all started . . . with this stunning piece of art glass — a clear ripple with green, plum, & blue tissue-paper-looking triangles & skinny strips of black rods infused throughout.
This baby was expensive. 😮 The original price for the 9¼" x 20″ scrap piece was $42.00! Even with more than 40% off, this little beauty cost me $24.00.
You buy glass by the square foot — this gorgeous stuff usually sells for $35 so it's quite a deal at $19. Still, considering I usually pay about $10 per sq. ft. for art glass, this is super special glass!
Since completing three windows & the entrance door to the porch, the outside window — still with some plastic — was looking pretty shabby. I hadn't planned on making this window until the inside of the porch was done & was still working on Blue Menagerie [Project 21] — so an easy & speedy solution was needed.
A few choices drawn in Photoshop help me determine glass colours & wood spacing — I like the symmetry of the third one.
Each wood panel has its own 1″ x 2″ routered frame — the inside horizontal pieces have grooves routered on both sides. The grooves are about 3/8″ deep to ensure a good lip for the glass.
My time spent on the whole window was minimal — after a couple hours on concept drawings, I spent about 4 hrs cutting glass & about one hour on measuring — 7 hrs total. But that "day's work" was spread out over 17 calendar days.
It took only a couple minutes to cut the glass for each panel — a nice 'break' from all the curves in Blue Menagerie.
Reddie [my redneck carpenter] would spend an hour or two preparing the frame pieces for each panel — routering a groove in the fir lumber [1″x2″s], cutting the four sides to the correct measurements, & screwing three of the sides together.
Then he routered a second side on the remaining grooved lumber & cut the short pieces to fit horizontally. All the pieces were stained & when dry, he delivered the whole 'kit' to me to measure & cut the glass [sorry, no photos].
After I fit the glass, it took Reddie a few minutes to screw the fourth side in place & set the whole panel in the open hole — each one temporarily rests against the original plastic frame.
The first panel is installed — resting against the plastic frame.
Altogether, he probably spent 8 hrs cutting & grooving — the install was the simpliest yet, so maybe an hour for that.
The middle panel — with the special glass — was installed a few days later.
Another few days & . . .
When the third panel was installed, the window felt almost finished.
First, one skinny panel installed.
The fifth & final panel is installed & the last bit of plastic removed.
And now the entrance to the porch is beautiful & is protected from the rain & wind.
The porch entrance now includes three windows & the door.
The porch from the outside, with the three windows installed on the left & one installed near the far end on the right.
Now, it's on to a special opening window at the far end, & I've got a cool idea for the next window from the entrance.
I love your window. Beautiful colored glass and a lovely design. I love the green flecked glass.
Wow, this is a beautiful project. I just love it!!
So beautiful! You are a true artist!! Thanks so much for joining our Impossibilities Challenge.
That is such and incredibly unique project. I just love it!
We stay live until Friday midnight (CST). Hope to see you at the party!
So happy to see you at the Impossibilities party!
I can't imagine how much work that must take! Love that bright teal, it's my favorite color. Thanks for linking to Refresh Your Nest Friday!
Just beautiful! Thank you for joining me at Home Sweet Home!
wow! that is really neat 🙂 I'm super impressed… and can't wait to see the finished project! thanks for linking up to MMM!
You do some Beautiful work sweet lady. I would like to Follow you but you do not have a Button for followers. come see me some time ok.
Hope you and your family have a wonderful week.


text:
The Reason Roundtable
The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
The Soho Forum Debates
Volokh
Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
Torchbearer Society
Print/Digital Subscriptions
You are now logged in.
Anarchist Philosopher Does Not Consent to be Governed!: Crispin Sartwell discusses Against the State: An introduction to anarchist political theory
Reason Staff | 12.30.2008 4:30 PM
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
"Growing up in D.C. will turn you into an anarchist," jokes Against the State: An introduction To Anarchist Political Theory author Crispin Sartwell. "I'm expecting the revolution to emerge from Wheaton (Maryland), high schoolers in the D.C. area who are embroiled in the bureaucracy of the American state." This five-and-a-half-minute-long interview was conducted by Nick Gillespie and shot and edited by Dan Hayes.
Widely published in both popular outlets and academic journals, Sartwell teaches at Dickinson College. For more information on him, go to his website.
To embed this interview at your website, go here.
For an audio podcast, go here.
And check out his October 30, 2008 appearance on the Reason.tv Talk Show, where he discussed anarchy, Darfur, and hip hop with the journalist Eli Lake and hosts Michael C. Moynihan and Nick Gillespie.
NEXT: A Purpose-Driven Baathism
Reason Staff
Philosophy Libertarian History/Philosophy Anarchism
Hide Comments (91)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.
jtuf
December.30.2008 at 4:50 pm
Good interview. Just one contention. It's true that the wars and genocides of the 20th century happened through state power. However, in the 19th century, lynchings happenned, because the state failed to defend Blacks, Catholics, and Jews. Anarchy does not address the question of how to catch a murderer.
Episiarch
Anarchy does not address the question of how to catch a murderer
Private investigators. The state catches murderers, yeah. How are those DNA exonerations going? Prosecutors are after justice, right?
Okay. We'll just keep all the genocide then.
And the comments don't run on time!
darjen
jtuf,
Are you saying that the state's failure to protect minorities an argument for state monopolization of police and justice?
If you are, that's actually yet another argument against state "justice".
Egosumabbas
While philosophically correct, the main downfall of anarchism is that there's no guarantee that somebody (or a collective) won't strong arm a new state into place. I can only see two solutions--that an anarchist society spontaneously forms in the ashes of a collapsed state, or that it is formed where no state previously existed. Agorists are the only group that I'd read of so far that actually have a concrete plan for a stateless society that doesn't involve massive violence (contrast that to a communist plan).
I'm willing to settle for a minarchist compromise in the meantime.
The Angry Optimist
Private investigators.
Paid for...family members, right? And what about the homeless guy, or the guy everybody hates?
"Paid for...family members, right? And what about the homeless guy, or the guy everybody hates?"
Well, in those cases you'd have this guy to help you out. Arguably, that time period was as close as you'd get to an anarcho-capitalist society, according Hoppe anyway.
Do the police bother themselves much about the homeless guy even now?
Pointing out the problems with anarchy is stupid, because nobody is claiming it is perfect. But that's what opponents of anarchism always do; nitpick at it as if anarchy has to be a perfect solution, while all other solutions don't. I can sit here and point out a zillion problems with states and goverment if I want, even tiny ones.
It's really just a question of how you prioritize the various problems of various systems.
Rules to follow, pills to swal
and this is where it gets us?
I'm not nitpicking; I think anarchy is anarchy is anarchy, and anarchy means perpetual warfare. I am categorically opposed.
Thanks. Sartwell is a cool dude.
While I agree the state's power is to be blame for the wars, genocide, etc. of both the past and present - this offers no solutions - only raising more questions.
Right Wing Realist
Anarcho Capitalism dissolves into city states:
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism2.html
Also, anyone that keeps the same political philosophy that they had when they were 12 is "special".
@Angry Optimist
There have been stable anarchist periods, for better or for worse. The longest lasting one being:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages
And the most recent one being:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Old_West
you call the Middle Ages stable and anarchistic? No offense, but...really?
@TAO
I think people project a lot of negative feelings of the middle ages that aren't well-founded. It was actually a much more peaceful and stable period than the Renaissance/Reformation.
During the Medieval Period, there wasn't a monopoly of justice, and most relationships were determined by contract rather than being backed by government force. Yes there was some slavery, but far less than during the Roman Empire.
*ahem*, were that so, are you saying that we can state that The Crusades and The Hundred Years War were NOT the results of states?
To give a concrete example, during the medieval period you could go on a pilgrimage from one end of Europe to the other, and the only thing you'd have to watch out for is bandits. Students were well-known to travel itinerantly from one university to another.
With the rise of nation-states, this was no longer possible because of national allegiances and state-ordained religions.
Nobody was forced to join the crusades, TAO.
Also, the Hundred Years War was when the nation-state emerged as kings began to consolidate their rule.
Plenty of people were forced to pay for it, including, you know, the Saracens.
And aren't the Middle Ages actually marked as starting with the Frankish Empire and Charlemagne?
I'd also just respectfully point out that IF the Middle Ages were "anarchistic", THEN the consequent rise of multiple empires during and after the Middle Ages (Frankish/Carolingian, France, England) is an argument against anarchy.
I agree with pretty much all his points...except the bit about anarchy. I guess I prefer minarchism, mostly because I think there are some ways in which the existence of a state makes people more free than without it.
I'd also just point out that the so-called "superstate", like the European Union is becoming, allows people to travel across borders without worries about passports or ID checks. Ditto with America, where the several states are sovereign (although America does not meet the definition because we all consider ourselves Americans on the international scene, not, say, Ohioans).
I wanny be anarchy, but can't:
http://maxborders.typepad.com/max_borders/2008/12/i-wanna-be-anarchy-but-i-cannot.html
I have to admit, I have never seen this particular piece of libtardology before. "The dark ages were great, because they had anarchy". Beautiful.
Anyone want to take a bet that if conditions in Somalia improve, the improvement will be correlated with the increased control of a state?
RWR - no one said anything about them being great, did they now?
Talking 'bout Somalia...
David E. Gallaher
I'm just seein' this at beddie-bye time, but I'm gonna git this book.
What ethnicity is represented by "Sartwell"?
I thought anarchists were either Russian or Irish.
Peaceful Anarchist Ruthless
grognard
Yeah, Somalia and Darfur are good examples of the Utopia you get when you have no state. I guess somebody forgot to tell the people of Darfur to hire a "private detective" when the jinjaweed showed up. Somalia can't feed itself and a major source of income is piracy. Anarchy gets you a warlord, and the "freedom" to do what he tells you to do. The need for a state is well explained by the libertarian author Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy State and Utopia, one of the best books ever written on government.
May.12.2012 at 4:58 pm
With a public sector army I'm not sure what exactly would change in Darfur.
They don't have the resources to defend themselves. Your argument is not very good, considering IR is a system of anarchy.
Eric Sundwall
Except for a brief outline at the end of the book, Sartwell doesn't really digress into the ideological process of a stateless condition (and correctly so). Rather he takes most of the usual rationalizations and arguments for the state and gives them an excellent boot in the ass. Thus Rosseau's 'general will' is summarily demolished along with Hobbes religiosity for Leviathan.
While Bentham's utility is given some due in the second part, it is by no means defendable. It's always nice to see Rawls bitch slapped and any adherence to a Hegelian state is surely laughable anymore. While he does address folks like Habermas in terms of modern theorists, one does wonder whether a broad enough survey of general theory has been approached. Likely he'll delve into Josiah Warren more in the follow-up effort than any similar reproach or affirmation of say, Rothbard.
As a further footnote, his usage of the term 'atomic', rather than what is typically used as 'atomistic' is a question that should be asked somewhere. At least Reason salvaged their time with Sartwell with this piece from that rather horrid first effort with the fat bald guy crying about police in Philadelphia and the cool excuse into hip hop tripe.
"The dark ages were great, because they had anarchy". Beautiful.
The Middle Ages were neither great nor anarchist. But they were characterized by a much more splintered and polycentric sort of sovereignty, and that had long-term benefits for European progress.
When they improved somewhat in the '90s, that was correlated with decreased state control. When they started degenerating again more recently, that was correlated with intervention by outside states. So that isn't a terrific example.
I guess somebody forgot to tell the people of Darfur to hire a "private detective" when the jinjaweed showed up.
Sudan is an even worse example, since it is not stateless and, in fact, has a very authoritarian state. Which, among other crappy policies, armed the Janjaweed.
It is amazing the level of ignorance at this place. Many of these states were either worse off with fascist governments, or were clearly not anarchist.
BTW I wasn't attacking you JW.
Also I want to clarify that I do not believe in violence, I am a law-abiding citizen.
December.30.2008 at 10:01 pm
I couldn't help but notice Mancur Olson's name doesn't appear in the book. Kind of a big oversight, isn't it?
While I get most of what Sartwell is saying, I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the future. True, the state has been growing largely unchecked, and organized efforts to maintain civil and economic liberties seem to be having more failures than successes of late, but the rapid changes brought on by the advance of science and technology may just lead to a freer, stranger world than ever before. Or they may just lead to a race of super robots who decide to exterminate all human life. But at least in that case we wouldn't be around long to worry about it.
nonPaulogist
This is the same dickweed who couldn't hold his own against a 3rd rate journalist in a debate. NO mention of Rothbard or the paleolibertarian anarchocapitalists at all. It's like the NYT and William Kristol or Fox news and Alan Combes. Reason is setting up a token anarchist to be a straw man and the preferred opposition.
Jesse, the Sudanese government does not exercise sovereignty. Initially the jinjaweed was armed by the Sudanese to regain control against various rebel groups but have now degenerated into what could best be described as independent bandit bands with no state affiliation. They make their living through theft and Sudan is a perfect example of the warlords you get with the loss of the state. In any case of course outside states are going to interfere with the power vacuum caused by anarchy, what else would be expected? Is the outside world going to ignore Somali piracy? If anarchy was in anyway a viable system it would have to deal with outside influences, including state influence.
Anarchy isn't a system, so it's meaningless to call it an nonviable one. Anarchy is the absence of a particular type of system, namely the state. You are making three huge assumptions:
1. that society cannot have order without civil laws. Manners and customs also bring order.
2. that laws always have to be enforced through violence or threat of violence. Credit ratings show that other means can work as well or better.
3. that the violent enforcement of laws MUST be done by a monopoly state.
There are plenty of historical examples that show all of these assumptions to be false.
Anarchy always fails eventually, but then again, so does the state. The fault lies not with anarchy or government, but with humanity. The truth is that we don't really know what a stateless world would look like anymore than the abolitionists knew what a slaveless world would look like. They just knew that slavery was evil and needed to be abolished. The state, like slavery, is an evil institution that needs to be abolished. That's all we need to know.
I'll live under an "oppressive" state that protects my life, family, and property thank you very much. Libertards can debate the morality of the state during their vacations in Somalia.
The state, like slavery, is an evil institution that needs to be abolished. That's all we need to know.
That's religion and as ridiculous as it sounds.
joshua corning
December.31.2008 at 12:07 am
The state will be the end of the human race.
Thanks joe...you fucking murder.
Yeah that was supposed to be "murderer"...but "murder" seems to work also.
Jesse, the Sudanese government does not exercise sovereignty. Initially the jinjaweed was armed by the Sudanese to regain control against various rebel groups but have now degenerated into what could best be described as independent bandit bands with no state affiliation. They make their living through theft and Sudan is a perfect example of the warlords you get with the loss of the state.
But no state is always capable of asserting its authority, and every state's attempts to assert its authority have unintended consequences. In the case of Sudan, those consequences were especially dire.
In other words, there is a difference between poor government and no government. You can't argue that anarchy will produce a war zone by pointing to a war zone and defining it as anarchy.
If anarchy was in anyway a viable system it would have to deal with outside influences, including state influence.
Sure, but that's true of any political system. There are anarchies (or relative anarchies) that have done a pretty good job of this and there are anarchies that have done a pretty lousy one; the same is true of states. I mean, I wouldn't point to Eastern Europe's inability to stave off Nazi and then Communist conquest as proof that national defense is impossible.
December.31.2008 at 1:27 am
Jesse, I'm not sure you can differentiate between anarchy and a poor state. When there is a power vacuum, whoever is most powerful will fill that void. I think it necessary to put a minimal, controlled state in the power position to simply be a placeholder such that no other warlord or group could exert power over the others of the society. Of course one could argue that the state inevitably becomes as bad as a warlord, as it grows and violates more and more of the rights it is supposed to protect. I still think it better than whoever can climb to the top fastest wins, though.
As for use of "force", nonPaulogist mentions credit ratings or some such thing. This is force just as much as anything else, even if it is financial force rather than physical. It might be preferable, but it's still force. As for enforcing laws, how could that be done by any means other than a monopoly state? If done by private entities, what assurance would you have that any set code of laws is followed, since police are basically mercenaries?
prolefeed
Private food.
Paid for ... by family members, right? And what about the homeless guy, or the guy everybody hates? Who will feed them?
/sarcasm
Food and retributive justice are two different things.
Prolefeed, you suggest that we simply replace state control over enforcement of rights with whoever has money? I suppose private investigation and protection would be much more of an industry if the police didn't have a monopoly over it, but it would simply be the same has hiring bodyguards or mercenaries. It would simply come down to who can hire the most guns, or "rights protection".
When there is a power vacuum, whoever is most powerful will fill that void.
But in the system proposed by anarchists, there isn't a power vaccum. Kropotkin defined anarchy as a society in which
the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international, temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs.
So power isn't absent; it's diffused throughout the society. Now you can debate how likely it is that such a social vision will ever actually be enacted. But it obviously isn't a matter of simply creating a power vacuum and seeing what happens. The idea is to start with those voluntary institutions and extend them as far as they can go.
As for the other debate, regarding the possibility of private law without territorial monopolies -- that actually has a pretty long history, and not always in an anarchist context.
Not to be impertinent, but I took "power vacuum" to mean that the lack of a State as a status will just lead to others gathering warriors and weapons and making themselves the State.
This is what I see happening. It just seems likely to me that any country/place/land that did this would either a)be invaded or b)progress from local tribes into something resembling a state or a bunch of states after some large number of years.
It seems that such a setup could be possible, but as mentioned, it is debatable if it could ever be implemented. It seems that some ultimate power would have to set up such a system of diffuse power, and then cede its own power to the diffuse system. It is almost a chicken and egg scenario, where you need a State, or something acting like one, to create a stateless system.
It just seems likely to me that any country/place/land that did this would either a)be invaded or b)progress from local tribes into something resembling a state or a bunch of states after some large number of years.
I think the evolution could go in either direction, and indeed has gone in both directions throughout history, with centralized power waxing and waning. Geography plays a big role too: Many of the most credible examples of anarchist communities existed in areas with strong natural defenses.
"In other words, there is a difference between poor government and no government. You can't argue that anarchy will produce a war zone by pointing to a war zone and defining it as anarchy. "
OK, valid point and fair enough, but you can still argue that an absence of government should be producing the ideal conditions for anarchy to flourish.
"voluntary associations.........needs."
As Nozick brilliantly points out Utopian schemes usually need perfect people to work. Sure this could work if everybody was on the same page and a decent human being but reality is that someone at sometime would take advantage of the system. The voluntary sanitary system falls apart if even one person decides to dump their trash in the street rather than paying for the expense or donating volunteer hours to belong to an association. What then? Do you use force to remove this person from society? Do you force him to join a sanitary association against his wishes? Do you force him into an area where everybody throws their trash in the streets? And as soon as force is applied you are doing that is different from any other form of government?
geniusiknowit
Minarchism is masturbation.
Most of you wouldn't know what to do with yourselves were there no one in charge of you. This is why there will always be a state.
And the state, will naturally always seek to expand its size and scope. Trying to keep its power in check is a losing battle. It will proceed toward totality until some force(s), external or internal, causes it to collapse. And then it starts over again.
The best one can do is to hasten the collapse, be prepared for it, and enjoy the temporary opportunity for liberty while you can.
The voluntary sanitary system falls apart if even one person decides to dump their trash in the street rather than paying for the expense or donating volunteer hours to belong to an association. What then? Do you use force to remove this person from society? Do you force him to join a sanitary association against his wishes? Do you force him into an area where everybody throws their trash in the streets? And as soon as force is applied you are doing that is different from any other form of government?
I believe the idea is to refuse to associate with said person. Don't communicate with him. Don't transact with him. Don't assist him. The person may continue to act as he wishes, but without acceptance from his community, he will most likely find life far more difficult, and either change his ways, or leave to find another community. But unless this person is a danger to you, you don't attack or imprison him.
Jeff Riggenbach
What an enlightening thread! A bunch of ignoramuses who have apparently never read a word of the very substantial literature on how various potential problems with a Stateless society might be worked out flapping their jaws furiously making what they apparently think are informed arguments against something they obviously don't understand.
Remind me to come back here every day.
It is true that the absence of state law can sometimes lead to injustice, such as lynchings. It is equally true that the presences of state laaw seems to lead to injustice far more frequently. If we accept that the state kills and that private individuals kill then we would have to at least consider the raw number of deaths. And by that criteria we'd at least have to seriously consider that the existence of government is far more deadly than its absence.
Kevin Carson
As Jesse said, Somalia is a bad example. Anarchism doesn't mean just destroying the state without any advance warning (the Jericho scenario) and then seeing what fills the vacuum.
Anarchism means supplanting the state with voluntary associations. Anarchists differ among themselves as to how gradually or rapidly this can/should be done, and as to the nature of the voluntary associations.
And the abolition of the state simply means abolishing any body that claims the right to initiate force. Voluntary associations can encompass the majority of society, and it's perfectly consistent with anarchist principle for them to exercise the right of defensive force in common in any case where defensive force would be legitimate for an individual acting alone. So the "hard case" examples of lynching and pollution don't seem to have a great deal of thought behind them.
Soviet Onion
It surprises that people would try to erroneously label Medieval Europe anarchist without at least mentioning the much better example of non-feudal medieval Iceland.
There's also some evidence that that Harappan (Indus Valley) Civilization was anarchist, and by the technological standards of the 3rd century BC it truly would have been a utopia. It was a large and highly market-oriented culture characterized by trade (internal and external), advanced agricultural technology, well-developed public sanitation (better and earlier than Greece), a variety of urban industries and crafts and an overall low level of poverty and wealth disparity, but no evidence of organized warfare. Indeed only one of the cities even have walls: a coastal city that might have used them to defend against raids by Arabian pirates.
That said, over the course of the '90s a host of non-governmental institutions -- some familial, some religious, some market-based -- did emerge or broaden themselves to fill the void, and conditions in Somalia were improving considerably until the war on terror undermined the social balance. Lord knows the place had problems, and they were hardly an ideal example of anarchy, but by contemporary sub-Saharan standards they weren't in bad shape.
Government is absolutely necessary for one thing, resolving disputes. Markets cannot do this because resolving a dispute is fundamentally different from a trade. Resolving a dispute requires the use of force, trade does not. Resolving a dispute also requires knowing the laws in advance therefore there can only be one set of laws in a given area. Imagine a basketball game where each team makes up the rules as they go. Each side in the resolution of a dispute wants to win. In a serious dispute like murder each side will use as much force as possible to win. It becomes necessary to align yourself with as powerful a group as possible to protect yourself from being on the losing end of a dispute. That's the theory. The reality matches the theory in places like Somalia.
Thomas Van Wyk
"Government is absolutely necessary for one thing, resolving disputes. Markets cannot do this because resolving a dispute is fundamentally different from a trade."
That's been brought up so many times by people who don't understand stateless legal systems that it's vaguely funny (or tragic?) that people still bring it up. It's the same argument that Rand et al. have made, and the same bogeyman that has been destroyed repeatedly by the last few centuries of anarchist thinkers. In any case, "what-if" or speculative arguments about how a stateless legal order might handle dispute resolution usually fall on deaf ears with regard to the minarchist position on dispute resolution.
Suffice it to say, the claim that a state monopoly on force is required for beneficial dispute resolution is, at best, more than a bit historically ignorant.
I refer you a few posts up to Mr. Riggenbach's post.
It would be more constructive to refer cr to the comment in which I linked to this.
After reading the paper on polycentric law Jesse linked there are still a few issues floating around in my head regarding law enforcement in an Stateless system.
While the author argues that laws will be agreed upon by various jurisdictions similar to the way free banking would work, I'm not wholly convinced since the process is not sufficiently explained. I cannot quite see how any specific rule set would be agreed upon, or why any specific enforcer would be compelled to enforce it. I admit I am no scholar in the area, so instead of berating my comments for ignorance, perhaps one of the knowledgeable anarchist thinkers who posted earlier in the thread could answer this, or at least link information that could.
If such a system of enforcement of a certain common set of laws could be derived, and it seems that it may be possible, there is also the question of where the laws come from and how they can be changed. Who would decide new laws to be added or old ones to be changed or removed?
Finally, the only way I can see of a stateless system remaining stateless is to only use a form of financial or social ostracism as means of law enforcement. Any other proactive force, financial, social, or physical, would ultimately have to be backed by physical force. This physical force would require an enforcer, and these enforcers would seem to naturally grow in power and eventually become the state. In Jesse's linked article, this is exactly what seems to happen in England with the Kings.
All interesting conversation, and the anarchist arguments are hardly falling on deaf ears with me. I am a minarchist because I believe that the market and people can attain nearly all their wants, needs, and desires without the use of government. The litmus test for the role of government should be "Is there any other way to do this better without government?" Anarchists would always say "yes". I'm not quite convinced that the answer is always "yes" yet, but I feel it could be. So for us less learned in the subject, how about less frustration and maybe giving some information?
After thinking a bit more about the ostracism way of enforcement, it feels like this stage of technology would create a ripe environment for this type of enforcement. The reason being that, like someone mentioned earlier, the use of credit rating-style agencies could be used to determine a sort of social credit score, which could be required for many types of social and financial transactions. Before things like the technology we have today, maintaining such a score, or having ready access to it woulds have been difficult or even impossible. Just some thoughts...
Russell Hanneken
January.1.2009 at 12:54 am
The Angry Optimist asked who would pay a private detective to investigate the murder of a homeless guy. One answer I've heard: murderers.
The idea is to make the right to restitution for murder into a transferable right. The homeless guy could sell his right to a business that specializes in murder investigations. If he gets murdered, the company could then track down the killer and collect the restitution they are owed.
robert capozzi
January.1.2009 at 5:17 am
I feel for the Sartwells of the world. If they don't wish to accept the rule of law, and abide by rough social contracts, I propose Nonarchy Pods. They can be restricted to their property and do as they will.
Less Antman
@ Robbie
Some quick and dirty responses to questions of yours in lieu of your reading ANARCHY AND THE LAW, edited by Edward Stringham, and THE ENTERPRISE OF LAW, by Bruce Bension, which offer very detailed discussion of these topics:
Non-government law typically was the result of custom, prior dealings, and reasonable person standards, with an emphasis on restitution for harm to lives and property. There really WASN'T much legislation, nor prescribed damages, since that was determined by the juries and depended on the harm done. Still, there is nothing to prevent scholars and experts from preparing legal codes with specific rules and specified damages, and insurers choosing to adopt them and require them as conditions of insurance. Where useful, the market is certain to provide them, and without monopoly power, the codes will be reasonable and practical to encourage their adoption.
As for enforcement, while I'm not a pacifist, I don't think the power of ostracism should be underestimated: a person denied access to the goods and services of society is suffering a tremendous, possible fatal, loss. Jurisdiction results from agreement between the parties (in practice, agreement between their insurers, whether insurance companies or mutual aid groups).
What about violent criminals who refuse to submit to arbitration or to accept decisions that involve their confinement? They become outlaws (having literally chosen to be outside the protection of the law), with nobody obliged to protect THEIR life or property, and with modern communication making their chance of survival slim. They are the only ones stuck in a Hobbesian jungle facing a life that is nasty, brutish, and short.
January.1.2009 at 1:31 pm
I'll add those books to the list. I've thought about the ostracism leading to being an "outlaw", but that, in modern times, would require all parties to care whether or not others are outlaws. Unless it is a "crime" to deal with outlaws, I can still see there being a lot of people who don't care about another's prior crimes if it means making a sale. For ostracism to work, it would seem that society would have to unanimously (or close to it) ostracize that person.
This idea that "state power is growing", and that it can be measured primarily by how much the government spends, is problematic. As far as individual freedom and human prosperity are concerned; what stuff the state does is a more important issue that how much stuff the state does.
For example, suppose a state repeals a law against consenting-adult sodomy, and spends the money they would have used to enforce it on building roads instead of cutting taxes. This would still be a gain for freedom and prosperity. In fact, it would be a gain for freedom and justice even if they spent the money on something obviously useless, like digging holes and filling them again.
So a few hundred years ago, were humans in general, and Americans in particular more or less free than today? I would say that we are clearly more free today - both in terms of the coercion we are subject to and the options we have available to us.
In the early US there were fewer annoying, minor, nit-picking-type regulations, and several outrageous injustices (slavery, unequal treatment of women, mandated racial segregation, gratuitous and irrational restrictions on sexual freedom, state-level restrictions on free speech, etc.) that have since been eliminated. The worst restriction on individual freedom that I can think of that has been added is probably the War on Drugs and the things that accompany it. Clearly this is less bad than the forms of tyranny that have been abolished.
Also, some of the new government regulations that have been added over the past few hundred years are justified. For example, you can't dispose of waste material in a manner that is likely to cause an epidemic. On this point, I'm not eager to return to the policies that were in place prior to the Germ Theory of Disease.
Incorrect, it is unlawful in any society to damage people's property. The roads and such would be someone's property.
Private Courts, not zero courts.
A reasonable point, but unanimity isn't necessary for an outlaw to bear very heavy costs: just being denied credit and debit cards and checking accounts is quite a burden financially. Nonetheless, I did say I'm not a pacifist, nor are most market anarchists, and the classification of someone as a violent outlaw is bound to involve some forms of private enforcement more vigorous than ostracism. Reciprocity is critical here: people are given the protection of law only if they agree to its usage, and the person who rejects it has voluntarily placed himself outside the protection of law. That is why people consented in the handful of past anarchist societies for which decent evidence exists, and the outlaw problem was minimal.
Can we guarantee it? No, but neither does our current system always punish murderers (unless they're dumb enough to participate in the theft of memorabilia in Las Vegas a few years later). We need to put the problem of violent outlaws in context. In the 20th century, there were between 8 and 9 million homicides worldwide. In that same period, there were 44 million soldiers killed, and 262 million noncombatants killed by governments. Professor Rummel of the University of Hawaii has done the most work on 20th century killings, and much data is summarized at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM. So more than 97% of killings were in the name of government.
The first step in dealing with violent psychopaths is to stop electing them. We fear the power of private individuals to do violence while we put people we've never met into positions that give them a legitimized monopoly on the use of aggressive violence and hand them WMDs. Then we wonder why we can't stop them from invading other countries, torturing people, strangling us with taxes and regulations, and gathering dossiers on everyone.
Getting rid of the institutional arrangement that killed 306 million ought to be a higher priority than getting rid of those who killed 9 million. Anarchists believe that markets will better address the 9 million as well, but the case for anarchism doesn't have to rest on that point, merely on the benefit of eliminating the much greater danger resulting from centralized monopolies of violence.
It's a fascinating topic, and I might suggest starting with the Stringham book, since it is a compendium of writings from various sources (including Benson), and a good starting point for deciding in which direction you want to go in reading (or if one book is all you can stand on the subject). You can also skip chapters you find tedious without it causing a difficulty in studying others.
My case? Minarchy is the theory that free market capitalism is best protected by a socialist monopoly. Anarchy is the theory that free markets are best protected by free markets.
Yea, I'll check that book out. It is all definitely interesting, and I'm always up for new ideas on better ways to do the things that need to get done.
I'm still pondering the question of where the laws come from in an anarchist system. The problem, I guess, isn't really how to enforce the laws, but who gets to make them. You could take the system you described above, with reciprocity and ostracism as the means of force, and use that for enforcement in a State based system as well. In fact, it could arguably be better than having police. The true issue seems to be not who does the enforcing, but what ends up getting enforced.
As for killing done by States, I'm not sure that those numbers apply in this discussion. This is the result of having armed forces in your society of any kind, State controlled or not. If you argue against armed forces, then it would be hard to see your society lasting long against any outside invaders. Armed forces, even in an anarchy, have to be controlled by someone or some group, and that person or group could be irresponsible or aggressive with them. In modern times, this is even more of an issue, since who would control the WMD's and other military-grade weapons you speak of?
You're absolutely correct: the enforcement mechanisms we're discussing could also be utilized in a society that had granted a monopoly on legitimized aggression to a single group. But it wouldn't be as effective against the monopolists themselves, would it?
I suspect you'll be far more open to how straightforward non-legislative law creation is once you've had a chance to read about the history of English customary and early common law, and of the international Law Merchant: most of today's laws were not created by politicians. The notion that politicians are uniquely qualified to create sensible laws is, to say the least, questionable.
I didn't mean to sidetrack this discussion of law with a discussion of defense, but was only pointing out that the problem of violent outlaws is dwarfed by the problem of violence by government officials. I also don't want to insult anyone's intelligence with throwaway lines about how easy collective defense would be without government (it certainly isn't easy with government), but I imagine the defense of an America without a central government would combine small professional forces with a voluntary armed militia of tens of millions. Not that different from Switzerland today, which has managed to stay out of 200 years of European conflict, but with voluntary funding and participation. I addressed the topic of funding defense in a post at http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2008/10/13/defense-without-taxes/ , which isn't remotely the last word, but might serve as a decent first word, and links to one of Roderick Long's many interesting articles on the defense topic.
But I don't want to conflate the issue of law creation with the issue of collective defense, nor open up a new can of worms, as my leisure time for this interesting thread is pretty much up, and I've got to get back to work today. I hope I've added something useful to this thread, and please don't take my non-participation after this post as a lack of interest in continuing the discussion. Happy book reading.
voluntary funding and participation
Doesn't Switzerland have conscription?
Niccolo
Angry Optimist,
If you're so concerned about those fringe minorities that make up a grand total of .00000000000000000000000000001% of humanity, then certainly you could pay for their redistributive justice.
In the meantime, I'm just not going to pay for the guy I hate, or the homeless guy - who possesses such the incentive to kill, anyways.
To everyone talking about Somalia,
Shut up.
You don't know what you're talking about, you have very little insight to the history and situation of Somalia, and characterizing it as some goofy proof that it shows people cannot form their own institutions for justice and societal governance popularly, only serves to further prove this.
First, the Somali situation is not one isolated from external factors.
Second, the Somali situation does possess great pockets of increase in wealth and general utility - see Peter D. Little's, Somalia: Economy without a state.
Third, it's barely been two decades since the collapse of Siyaad Barre's regime, it's barely been a decade since the intervention of the US and the UN that further served to fund and feed Somali factionalists like the ex-president/warlord of warlords backed by the US and Ethiopia - recently stepped down - Abdullahi Yusuf. How you can possibly expect Somalia to emerge to the level of western standards of living within that time - despite all the interventions of foreign powers - is quite a remarkable sign of inability to look at the facts rationally.
Fourth, this is not a "Jericho" example. In all honesty, if the government were to just disappear tomorrow, it may result in brief - very brief - reordering, but it would be no worse than society under a state. This is certainly true for Somalia, as the Baare regime was extraordinarily brutal and exploitative of the Somali people. A brutality that was never matched by even the worst of the warlords in pre-ICU Somalia.
@ Jesse
> Doesn't Switzerland have conscription?
Yes That's why I said I thought it would be not that different from Switzerland, "BUT with voluntary funding and participation." I was specifically trying to clarify this would be the one significant difference. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
I wonder how much it costs to get justice for a trillionth of a person.
(Although, with that number of "0"s and then a percent sign, the quote actually signifies less that that.)
Sorry, Less. I misunderstood the sentence.
BG wrote:
"suppose a state repeals a law against consenting-adult sodomy, and spends the money they would have used to enforce it on building roads instead of cutting taxes. This would still be a gain for freedom and prosperity."
Not if the road right of ways were acquired through Immanent Domain. If you were the person getting your land stolen and you weren't into butt sex, that might not be a good trade-off.
I'll assume you meant "Eminent Domain".
I would argue that Eminent Domain is a more justifiable than anti-sodomy laws. Although a person who doesn't wish to engage in a certain act might place a low value on the freedom to do so, we should take into consideration the freedom and prosperity of everyone in the society (not just one non-sodomy-enjoying landowner who lives in an inconvenient spot) when making such comparisons.
1 - A person subject to Eminent Domain is losing property at a particular location, but receiving compensation. That person has the option of using that compensation to buy a similar house in same area; and thus getting the same benefits in the long run that he or she would have received from keeping the original house. By contrast, the harm imposed by anti-sodomy laws on people who enjoy sodomy persists as long as the law remains - they are deprived of the freedom to have fully satisfying sex lives.
2 - Roads and other infrastructure are necessary to have a prosperous modern society. While I am open to ideas of how adequate infrastructure could be built without involuntary transfer of location ownership, I think such transfer is necessary in some cases. The existence of infrastructure has a net benefit even to those who had to move due to an Eminent Domain seizure. By contrast, prohibiting consenting adult anal sex is not necessary for any rational purpose.
1. Incorrect, central planners create negative externalities, and you are not a Libertarian if you support this, imo.
2. Private roads are among the easiest things to build, we have private sidewalks already. People will have tolls or barcodes.
Oh yeah public goods don't ELIMINATE the price of something.
They just shift the management of said goods to the central planners, and this makes our lives more expensive.
Also this "net benefit" is complete bullshit. The management of said roads is extremely costly and thousands of people die.
Statist.
Thomas Van Wyk wrote,
"Suffice it to say, the claim that a state monopoly on force is required for beneficial dispute resolution is, at best, more than a bit historically ignorant."
2 questions: 1-Briefly summarize how a murder dispute would be resolved in an anarchy. If you refer me to another site I'll assume you don't know. 2-Name the current, most successful anarchy. Please don't tell me about medieval iceland.
It is called foreign policy, which is complete anarchy.
Briefly explain to me why people engage in charity, since it has no beneficial purpose to them? That's what I thought.
Private courts =/= Zero courts.
Legitimacy and credit ratings, is what allows private courts to engage in force.
It is not perfect at all but better than the public court system.
Keep in my no one should ever want to overthrow our current government, we are talking about a brand new and fictional land.
James Madison in the Federalist papers addressed factionalism very well.
You eliminate factions, or decrease their power by having competition essentially. There are so many factions in the world that they each serve as a natural check and balance on each other powers.
This is why foreign policy is pure anarchy too.
Please log in to post comments
Gun Control Is Just as Racist as Drug Control
Jacob Sullum | From the February 2022 issue
Backyard Chickens Make Headway in Iowa, Stall Out in New York
Baylen Linnekin | 1.15.2022 8:00 AM
What Progressives Get Wrong About Judicial Review
Damon Root | From the February 2022 issue
Her Husband Died After Police Hogtied Him for 90 Minutes. Could She Ever Hold Them Accountable?
Billy Binion | 1.14.2022 5:11 PM
Zoning Officials Stop Church From Opening 40-Bed Shelter in Sub-Zero Temperatures
Christian Britschgi | 1.14.2022 4:45 PM
© 2021 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Anyone who pays even the slightest attention to such issues in Seattle has doubtless heard the oft-repeated edict: Our single-family zones are sacred. Discussions of future growth are almost invariably predicated in a tacit assumption that single-family is untouchable, that Seattle's single-family zones will remain as they are from now until the end of time.
At the mere suggestion of even the most minor tampering with single-family zones, everyone from politicians to planners to developers and designers will nod heads in resigned agreement–just don't go there, it's not worth it, you'll get yelled at, and you might even wake up to find a severed horse's head in your bed. I've even caught myself mindlessly repeating the mantra.
But who decreed that this is so? Or more to the point, who cares who may have decided that this was so at some point in the past: Just exactly who still believes, given current conditions and prospects for the future, that all single-family zones in Seattle must be preserved at all costs?
Two of Seattle's most outspoken voices for the sanctity of single-family are Chris Leman and Irene Wall, both of whom are members of the City Neighborhood Council. Both are quoted in this recent PI piece covering the Northwest Ecobuilding Guild's recommendations for modest modifications to the single-family zoning code. Wall regrets that "there never seems to be a point where we say we say: 'Hey, we're full.'" In other words, shut the door, problem solved.
For Leman it's actually neighborhood planning that is sacred above all else, and therefore he opposes any code update that has not been fully vetted through a full-blown neighborhood planning process. It may seem like a reasonable position, until you stop ignoring the fact that no neighborhood is an island. In the real world of interconnected planetary ecosystems, conditions may arise in which the interests of the many outweigh those of the few. Two words: climate change.
And here's Wall laying out her case for preserving single-family in this DJC opinion piece, along with an opposing view by Roger Valdez. Roger is too nice. Wall's arguments, many of which I previously addressed in this post, consist of the usual mix of biased sentimentality and sloppy analysis. I'm tempted to parse it out, but better yet, perhaps some of you commenters would enjoy taking a crack at it.
Getting back to the original point: The first step in freeing oneself from an unhealthy myth is to stop repeating it. Then you refute it. Like so: Given the current state of Seattle and the planet, and considering our most credible projections for the future, it is blatantly irresponsible city planning to keep single-family zoning off limits.
Posted by dan bertolet on	Tuesday, September 30th, 2008 at 10:24 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
There is very little connection between SF zoning and climate change. The negative impact of SF zoning comes in the form of housing scarcity, not climate change.
The major impact on climate change is transportation, and building townhouses in remote single family zones far away from rapid transit only puts more people in auto-dependent places. If you want to fix the problem of climate change, we need to put as many people as possible within walking distance of rapid transit (because absent $20 gas the bus ain't gonna cut it). Ironically, the urban village strategy, though it was developed primarily to "protect" SF zones, has the affect of packing people in these walkable centers. Connect these centers with rapid transit and you have a recipe for a major mode shift and a positive impact on climate change, but spread them out in townhouses built in existing SF zones and they will still drive.
Now, the one situation in which there is a strong need to kibosh the untouchable of SF zones is if a Light Rail station happens to be in an SF zone, e.g. Beacon Hill.
You know, I like walking through single-family housing streets, especially ones full of houses of a similar era like Ravenna or the North Slope in Tacoma. It makes me feel like I'm just off Main St USA. However, you mention townhouses, Tony, and I don't like those. They all look the same and are too tall.
Whoops, didn't mean to hit submit yet. Anyway, most supposedly single-family housing areas in Seattle are not like that. It's usually like along 12th Ave NE in the U-District (north of NE 50th) you get this ugly mix of older houses, townhouses and short apartment buildings. No one is happy with that and the whole area should just be upzoned.
No (but yes to scarcity).
o As you contradict yourself in the below italicized, sprawled SFD increases TPD and VMT and their attendant CO2, NOx, SOx emissions and other precursor chemicals for formation of low-level O3..
- The extra VMT creates a demand for pavement, which absorbs heat (exacerbating urban heat island and altering precip patterns) and clears carbon-sequestering trees and soil for infrastructure.
- Tree cutting and soil disturbance release CO2, in addition to heavy equipment emitting pollutants mentioned above.
- Not to mention the alteration of in-stream flow and peak flows from increased impervious surfaces and the increased eutrophication from pavement and other pervious surfaces.
The major impact on climate change is transportation, and building townhouses in remote single family zones far away from rapid transit only puts more people in auto-dependent places.
The major contributor to man-made climate changeacross the globe is energy. Transport is 13% (~26 in US IIRC).
I believe, IIRC, Matt the Engineer had nice contributions to a thread here not too long ago that explained how, in the US, buildings are a larger potential contributor to efficiency gains than transport (negawatts).
Now, I'm all for getting rid of Euclidean zoning and letting it all work itself out. This is good for environmental health, QOL, efficiencies, financial discipline, social reasons (related to env health), psychological reasons, ecosystem health, etc.
But let us, as Dan'l implores, stop spreading myths when spreading the message.
Speaking as someone who lives on 12th Ave NE, the mix of houses, townhomes, and apartments was one of the more desirable features of that location. Although I would like to see taller apartments, I like the diversity that comes into play when you get housing that caters to a wide variety of socioeconomic types.
Hey, I lived on 12th Ave NE myself for a couple years! That's sort of what I was trying to say. Some of these Single Family areas are worth preserving–North Slope is actually a National Historic District–but other SF areas are desirable because they're not actually what NIMBYs think of as SF!
So why allow (ugly) cookie-cutter townhomes or View Ridge McMansions that happen to be under 50 ft (or whatever) but not allow an 80 ft apartment building?
Perhaps we could have tightly defined special districts (much smaller than neighborhoods, with full design review), which would provide an outlet for people like Irene Wall, but otherwise relax zoning. Of course I'm talking off the top of my head here, I haven't really thought this through.
I think the best path to follow is slow but steady zoning increase. This way we keep some SF homes for the foreseeable future, just less of them over time. Take any streetcar neighborhood's main street. It's dense commercial, and likely has recently added condos on top. Beyond that are apartments and townhouses. Past that are single family homes with small property areas (mine is 30′x120′). Past that it's SF homes with larger property areas.
Now, if we simply move the zoning lines outward from that main street, new developments come in at a slightly larger scale than the existing ones, and nothing is too different in the neighborhood. Over time this increases density, and increases density where it's most useful (near that main street with several good bus routes).
Of course the exception to this should be new Link stations. Here we need rapid growth and the sky should be the limit anywhere within easy walking distance (though I'd follow the same tall to short strategy for zoning beyond that). Effectively we've created a new streetcar neighborhood, but instead of a streetcar it's a much higher capacity light rail that's a point instead of a line.
I may have misused hyperbole in making my point. You are correct that the construction, maintenance and heating of a 2000 sqft SF house requires more energy than a 1000 sqft townhouse. However, the primary culprit is the size of the house, not the size of the lot. Though there likely are some energy savings due to adjacent walls in town houses, the building energy difference between a 1000 sqft townhouse and a 1000 sqft single family bungalow is negligible. The small SF house actually results in a lower percentage of impervious surfaces than the townhouses.
You make several point that do specifically refer to density such as VMT, tree cutting etc. All of these are true, but they are driven by the overall density of the city, not by the distribution of that density within the city.
Let's say that, for climate change sake, we want to set the growth targets for Seattle to double our current population, thus accommodating 600,000 new people and preventing the expansion of the outer suburbs and the attendant soil disturbance, tree cutting and VMT increase. There are two ways this could be done, the first would be to upzone all or most SF zones to L1 (townhouses). The second would be to preserve most SF zones and substantially upzone a network of urban villages connected by rapid transit to mid-rise and high-rise. Both of these approaches would achieve the same average density throughout the city and have the same effect on the sprawl impacts you identified.
The difference is that the urban village strategy puts more people in walking distance of rapid transit, allowing more trips to be replaced with transit. While the citywide townhouse strategy may result in people driving shorter distances than sprawl, it still result in driving as the primary mode of transportation for a larger portion of the population, thus, in comparison to the Urban Village strategy, it has a higher climate impact.
My overall point is: why pick a miserable fight with Seattle neighborhoods in order to achieve a relatively poor solution when the Urban Village strategy is win-win? UV is better for climate change than SF upzones AND it also preserves SF zones. Everybody wins.
I strongly believe our efforts are best spent advocating for the policies that will make the urban village strategy work (such as the construction of a rapid transit network that connects the villages and the focusing of amenities in these areas) rather than picking an unnecessary and counterproductive fight over SF zoning.
//the primary culprit is the size of the house, not the size of the lot// I'd say the primary culprit is the square footage per person. We really need to compare the average size of single family homes (I'd say around 2000 SF) to the average size of townhouses (I'd guess 1500) to the average size of condos or apartments (1000?). Sure there are some small bungalows, but they are the exception.
//The small SF house actually results in a lower percentage of impervious surfaces than the townhouses.// Considering townhouses are typically 2-3 floors, that's 1/2 to 1/3 the roof area. Since they're on smaller properties and the garage is usually built in, that's even less impervious area.
//the building energy difference between a 1000 sqft townhouse and a 1000 sqft single family bungalow is negligible// Again, I'd disagree. A 1-story bungalow compared to even just a 2-story duplex has twice the roof area (where you lose a lot of heat). Plus see my first comment about the usefulness of even making this comparison. The average townhouse is much smaller than the average house.
spent the money to buy there and provide the energy to maintain what they have bought.
Sure, there may be speculative purchases for some kind of potential 'density upgrade', but, in most single family areas, the house is bought for use as a home, or sometimes, as a rental property.
Single family may not be sacred to those who are outside, but for those within, I'm not so sure.
They're wise to the coyotes circling their land parcels.
I think they will continue to fight upzoning for the sake of their kids, their pets, and their lawns.
SF houses are being replaced by multiple townhouses, and the area of truly impervious surface is generally increased. Large trees are lost with no opportunity for replacement in kind, as there usually isn't enough open space configured for a large tree. Townhouses are allowed greater lot coverage than apartment buildings in Lowrise 3, where lots of them go. More bacteria in the Sound.
What drives townhouse as opposed to small apartment/condo building construction? Do the economics really preclude the latter?
You make some good points and I do have to admit that even small SF houses are probably more energy intensive than most multifamily.
I also hope I'm not coming across as an SF purist. I live in a midrise apartment on capitol hill, so I'm doing my part. I also think that there are certain SF areas that do need to be upzoned, particularly those near rapid transit stations and streetcar lines (if they are ever built).
I think we should also remember that not all SF zones are created equal. I find SF 9600 a lot more offensive than SF 5000, and most SF zones in the suburbs are even larger. Single family is fine with me, but half-acre lots are ridiculous.
So I really agree with DanB's post, SF is not sacred. I just think we should pick our battles and there may be other targets that yield a higher return on our efforts, such as the UV strategy and limiting lot size in the suburbs.
First, and most significantly, townhouses fall below the SEPA and design review threshold. Both these processes are costly, so Seattle exempts small projects. Obviously there should be some cutoff where design review kicks in (you wouldn't want to force somebody to go through design review to build a tool shed in their back yard for example), but by placing the cutoff where it is, it makes townhouses (below the threshold) cheaper to build than condos (above the threshold). There are two solutions: lower the threshold so that any multifamily construction requires design review, or raise the threshold to exempt small condo/apartment projects. Because design review (and SEPA) is SO expensive, we will always see a bunching up of projects just below the line, wherever we draw it, but draw it low enough and you will actually encourage higher density development, because if a developer has to do design review anyway, they may as well spread the cost out over a larger number of units.
The second reason developers like townhouses is that because they are not stacked vertically, you don't have to deal with the joint ownership hassles of a condo building. Essentially, for a four-pack, the developer just subdivides the land into four super-small lots, each of which is taxed and owned separately. It's like quasi-single family from an ownership perspective. This saves administrative hassles for both the developer and the homeowners initially (which is why they like it), but creates all sorts of problems in the long run because the owners of townhouses do in fact share walls, but they lack the joint ownership agreements that come with condos. So what, do you do if you need to replace a roof? This rule also needs to be changed so that all owner occupied multifamily housing is structured the same way.
Changing these two policies (which are arbitrary, city policies set by the City Council) would eliminate the artificial bias toward townhouses and allow the market to function without distortion. The result would be fewer townhouses and more stacked flats. There would still be some townhouses because some people really do prefer them, but most of the townhouse construction owes to the market distorting policies described above rather than true market demand.
12th NE north of 50th provides a particularly interesting example, because it looks mostly SF but is a probably only half SF — a bunch of its formerly-SF houses are now shared rentals. The rentals accomplish some of the goals both sides of this argument want (dense living, low environmental impact related to construction, preservation of neighborhood character, yard space, etc.).
It seems to me there's a middle path to preserving SF neighborhood structures and character while allowing increased density. Suppose new construction in SF zones must be single-family, but houses in SF zones that have stood for 20 years or more may be converted to duplexes without requiring zoning changes. Historically, this has been allowed — there are duplex conversions all over lower Wallingford — and units in such duplexes make comparatively affordable housing.
I suspect the biggest objection to this would come from neighbors who see street parking as their Deity-granted right and assume that conversion will remove street parking (which, in fairness, it probably would on the average). Maybe some kind of education or other mitigation (e.g. a duplex conversion must be accompanied by a $2000 donation to a neighborhood fund) would be this acceptable.
Tony's description of why townhouses rather than condos get built in lowrise zones is spot on. I'd also add that there are currently zoning bonuses associated with townhouse style units — if I recall correctly, the developer is allowed to go a little taller and/or cover slightly more of the lot if the units are built as townhouses.
I agree with the "wolves" comment to some extent. Let's see if I can be more coherent this time. I'll use two examples that look the same on paper–small lots, single family houses built before the Depression.
The U-District is, I believe, a good example of what I'll call pseudo-single family zoning. Once upon a time (early 20th Century) it was true single family housing. Small lots, small houses. However, more recently a very large percentage of the houses have turned into rental properties. Some are rooming houses that are no better than slums (1 bathroom for 12 occupants, etc). Others are extremely well kept duplexes or triplexes. There are also still some actual single family houses. Lately you can mix in developers who see that townhomes equal dollar signs for the reasons Tony described (at least two sets on 12th Ave NE that I can think of, with more on 11th and Brooklyn and so on). In this context the current zoning makes no sense–especially considering this land will be within walking distance of two stations: Brooklyn Station at 45th and Roosevelt Station at 65th!
However, a similar distance from Roosevelt Station is the Ravenna neighborhood east of 15th Ave NE that never went through the rooming house transition. The important thing to notice is that on paper it looks the same as the U-District–small lots, houses built before the Depression. In my opinion Ravenna SF (and similar) should be protected. This is a close-in walkable neighborhood that I can't afford to live in, but I'd love to someday. As far as I know, the only permanent option available is the National Historic District process, but the city design review process provides some help.
the building energy difference between a 1000 sqft townhouse and a 1000 sqft single family bungalow is negligible.
In addition, one can make light-colored roofs, increasing albedo. One cannot plant light-colored grass to shade the ground; thus heat capacity is increased in a large-lot scenario, increasing the heat island effect.
We also have the issue of road miles in SFD. If we are going to have suburban SFD, the most efficient way is smaller lot sizes and narrower streets shaded by deciduous trees.
Both of these approaches would achieve the same average density throughout the city and have the same effect on the sprawl impacts you identified.
This presumes everyone wants to live this way. This is not the case.
Maybe when gas is $12.00/gal. or we're way past peak oil and transportation sector shrinks; both scenarios are a generation away. No narrowly prescriptive policy can get enacted without the flexibility of the ~25% demand for SFD in the future (e.g. Chuck Nelson's projections).
* Friedman 2007 pg 148 (Fig 5.11).
Yes, it's 60% lot coverage (very often increased beyond 60% through departures in design review) for townhouses vs. 50% for buildings of flats.
Tony: thanks for explanation. Wasn't the SEPA threshold recently raised from projects of >8 units to projects of >30 units in at least some zones,including urban villages?
I think everyone deserves to have a single-family….
This is a great discussion. I'd like to bring up a housing style that I'd love for Seattle to bring into its codes: San Francisco row houses. These are somewhere between a townhouse and a SF house, each with a tiny garage built underneath and with no side yards (each house touches on both sides). At first they're sold as fairly large houses, but later get subdivided into 2-3 "flats". Each flat has about the area of a small condo.
The result is a fairly dense building style that can easily triple in density over time. The developer doesn't have to worry about land rights, since he sells it to one owner. There are likely land rights issues later, but that can be solved with good codes (maybe copied from San Francisco codes).


30 minutes to make Serves 2-3 dozen; This traditional Mexican treat can be found in any Hispanic bakery- if you live in a border state- anywhere really.
Regardless of their true pedigree, Mexican wedding cookies are as simple as they come: roughly one part powdered sugar, two parts pecans, four parts flour, and four parts butter by weight. That high-fat/low-moisture formula gives the cookies an unusually delicate consistency, one that virtually melts on the tongue, along with a strong, pecan-forward flavor.
9/05/2013�� Mexican wedding cookies can be made gluten free by using a gluten free flour, which I have done many times and works out great. It's important to roast the pecans for that rich flavor.
I searched the internet for a recipe for the Three Color Mexican Cookies called Polvorones that we discovered served at the breakfast buffet at our hotel. The closest recipe I found was for Big Pink Mexican Cookies from the NerdyBaker .


text:
Lakehead dodges Carr and Hirz fires, but economic trouble looms
Thomas Novelly
Lakehead has emerged unscathed from the flames that have devastated much of the region, but the popular tourist destination is still feeling pain.
The community of about 500 residents in Shasta County has been sandwiched between the Carr and Hirz wildfires, narrowly escaping evacuation and intense damage from one of the worst series of wildfires in California history.
But disaster comes in many forms and, for Lakehead, the toll wrought by the pair of massive blazes will be an economic one. The area's small businesses and resorts are already seeing big hits in their summer revenues heading into what should have been a lucrative Labor Day weekend.
"Lakehead was surrounded on both sides at one point," said Julie O'Loughlin, the owner of the Tsasdi Resort. "You're in between a rock and a hard place because you value your guests more than anything, but you're not in real immediate danger."
O'Loughlin said it's typically busy leading up to Labor Day weekend, the last push of Lakehead's resort community to get revenue before the off season. But O'Loughlin said the resort has been way quieter than usual and instead she has been inundated with phone calls by guests to reschedule, cancel or inquire about danger from the fires.
And she's not alone in feeling the economic pressure.
Several owners of Lakehead's rental communities and resorts shared the same consensus. When Ross Marshall, the owner of the Lakeshore Inn and RV, was asked to sum up in one word how this Labor Day season compared to others he said, "terrible."
"It's definitely put a damper on our business," Marshall, 76, said. "Thankfully, we had a real good season leading up to the fires, so we have some savings we'll have to dip into."
On July 23, the Carr Fire started in Whiskeytown–Shasta–Trinity National Recreation Area when the rim of a flat tire hit the asphalt causing a spark to fly, setting off the sixth-worst wildfire in California's history.
Over the course of the next month, the blaze killed eight people, and scorched roughly 230,000 acres of the Golden State. As of Monday, it started to die down with containment at 96 percent, according to the Forest Service.
And just four days after Carr started, the Hirz Fire was set off just north of Lakehead.
Nolan Rutherford, the 24-year-old manager of the affectionately named Basshole Brews in Lakehead said the entire chaos of the last month could be seen right from a barstool.
During the first week of the Carr Fire, he heard guests discussing their worries about smoke and quick-moving blazes. The next few weeks were filled with firemen and contractors stopping in for a few cold ones after combating the flames. He said guests could even see both of the back-burns from the Carr and Hirz fires at night from their parking lot.
But on Monday afternoon, the week of one of their busiest seasons, the bar sat mostly empty.
"Lakehead just couldn't catch a break," said Harold Jones, the 61-year-old owner of the Sugarloaf Cottages Resort. "It has been a long six weeks answering phone calls from guests."
Jones said he has seen a dip in booking revenue from the fires too, but he is trying to stay optimistic. He said he is happy that no one in Lakehead was hurt in the Carr Fire and that it appears the Hirz Fire will dodge Lakehead.
On Monday, the Forest Service told the Redding Record Searchlight the edge of the fire closest towards Lakehead has been mostly curbed.
"The edge of the fire (near communities) is really low-risk," Forest Service spokesman Don Simon said. "We've got a good amount of control right now."
The community has gotten used to being at the mercy of the weather for the most part, according to Dusty Krueger, the assistant manager of the Lakehead Villa Market.
As the only primary grocery store in Lakehead, besides a few gas stations for incidentals, Krueger said this has been the worst Labor Day season she has seen in her eight years at the business.
But Kreuger, and other business owners are trying their best to stay optimistic. They encourage guests to stick around, and hope they'll be willing to come back another summer. One where, hopefully, disaster won't strike so close to home.
Marshall, a former firefighter in Los Angeles County who traded in his gear for the keys to the Lakeshore Lodge in 1995, said he is used to wildfires. But even the tragedy of Carr and the proximity of Hirz isn't enough to make him give up his livelihood in Northern California.
"It's a beautiful area," Marshall said as he looked at a map of the fire damage. "But, it's just something, sadly, you put up with. If I was younger, I'd be fighting the fires … but now I'm living in the middle of them."


The executive functions are a set of processes that all have to do with managing oneself and one's resources in order to achieve a goal. Search our resource section for all resources related to executive functioning.
We Aperger folks are often told we are horrible knots while the rest of the world is straight string. Well I am here to tell you that you have beautiful minds and if you just step back and get different a point of view then I promise that you will see that you are made of not a single ugly knot but made of thousands upon thousands of knots that form a beautiful mosaic of lace! This site celebrates YOU!


Established in 2002, Universal Windows Direct is the honest exterior remodeling company providing nothing but the best quality products, installation, and warranty. You'll find that our replacement windows, entry doors, and vinyl siding truly stand the test of time while keeping more money in your wallet. Speaking of money, our pricing is incredibly competitive and almost unbeatable for the quality. We want you to have the best products at pricing that won't break the bank!
Are you tired of run-of-the-mill window companies that you can barely trust, let alone find value with their products? Our tried and true engineering builds trust with customers as well as improving homes. We only offer the best quality products to install in your Warren home!
What is your definition of greatness for replacement windows? Is it a sleek and modern design? Framing that withstands the weather? Installation that helps save energy? UniShield® window replacement hits the mark on every aspect of best replacement windows. They sound almost too good to be true, but we promise they're the real deal! Each window is carefully engineered for your home, fitting the exact measurements of the window opening while blocking out drafts. Homes instantly become cozier and your property value can even increase. That's a lot to ask of window replacement, but UniShield® is more than just a regular window---it's exceptional!
What do you expect when you invest in siding replacement? Getting the best value for your money? Feeling your heart flutter from the beauty of your new curb appeal? Every day, Unishield® vinyl siding says "welcome home" as you arrive in your driveway! Boasting durable siding panels with premium thickness, this vinyl siding withstands the elements while keeping the home comfortable. Its beauty lasts a lifetime and you can add wow-factor to the exterior with various upgrades, including vinyl soffit, vinyl cedar shakes, and vinyl scallops. UniShield® vinyl siding is the top pick if you're looking to transform your exterior for a great price and an even better value. What are you waiting for?
If you ask your neighbors around Warren, other entry doors can hardly touch our fiberglass entry door products. Why? Its outstanding quality is unparalleled to the rest, featuring lifelike wood grain patterns, rich wood stains, and an array of exterior paint color options that add pizzazz. You'll find decorative glass options galore in almost limitless shapes, styles, and sizes. You also need an entry door that's secure, so we've engineered our door products with steel frames that are tested to withstand multiple hits. It's the ultimate door for any home in Warren!
Is it time for a new roof? Replacement roofing in Warren, Ohio, is certainly an investment, but it's important that you upgrade your roof in order to protect your home from costly leaks and repairs. Neglecting to install new roofing can lead to headaches down the road. Asphalt roofing from Universal Windows Direct can last up to 25 years, and this is the general timeframe you'll want to look at when it's time for an upgrade.
What good is it to upgrade your exterior without a warranty? Don't risk it! Our True Lifetime warranty will give you the ultimate peace of mind by covering many aspects of your new investment, from pieces and parts to labor.
Everyone loves our installers! They are fast yet accurate and clean up after every project. Best of all, they're certified and insured.
You've heard all about our products and services, but what about our company? We're glad you asked!
We're not like other window companies in Warren, Ohio. As one of the top ranking companies on Qualified Remodeler's 500 and Remodeling's 550, we serve our neighbors here in Warren because we love the community, from the historic downtown area to the quaint surrounding neighborhoods. We treat both our employees and customers like family, and we're committed to serving your family with the best quality exterior products---all at an outstanding price.
Whether you need to improve your Warren home for its curb appeal or simply want lower energy bills, we're here to help. We're extending our hand to join you on the exciting journey of improving your home together! Are you ready?


Eric D. Echols, CFI A former US Marine, Eric Echols is the founder, president and CEO of The LPS Group, Inc., a privately owned loss prevention, private detective and security corporation. Eric has over than 25 years of experience in loss prevention, security & investigations through executive positions he held with Fortune 500 companies. A licensed private investigator and firearms trainer for the State of Georgia through the Secretary of State, Private Detective &Security Agencies, Eric is a Certified Forensic Interviewer (CFI) and has interview and interrogation experience in retail, criminal, and civil investigations. Eric is a Board Director with the Georgia Association of Professional Process Servers, an Advisory Board Member with American InterContinental University (AIU) Criminal Justice Program and an active serving member of Destiny Metropolitan Worship Church in Atlanta, GA. Eric has authored The Fisherman and The Catch: Catching the Right Woman and The Echols Files: Catoosa County Justice.


Do you worry about getting enough fibre on your low-carb diet?
Critics often cite lack of fibre to claim low-carb nutrition is not healthy.
Is this a real issue?
Fibre deficiency is common. Most adults get less than the recommended minimum, even on a standard diet.
It gets harder on a low-carb diet, as you will eat less of high-fibre foods like fruit and grains, due to their high carb content.
What is dietary fibre and why is it important?
Fibre, also referred to as roughage, is the indigestible part of plants. Although not a nutrient, fibre is crucial for healthy digestion. It has several important functions for trouble-free passage of waste through your digestive system.
Lack of fibre causes constipation in the short term. Over a long period of time, it can lead to serious digestive disorders like colon cancer and coronary heart disease.
Fibre increases satiation, helping you feel full faster.
It can improve glucose tolerance and insulin response, making your low-carb diet more effective.
Sufficient fibre consumption is also linked to good cholesterol levels and heart health.
Are you getting enough fibre on your low-carb diet?
The good news is, it's easy to tell if your fibre intake is adequate.
If you are not getting enough, your digestive system will respond immediately with a clear sign – constipation.
This side effect is common on a low-carb diet. But it is easy to avoid.
You can get enough fibre from low-carb foods. You just need to know what they are and include them to your meals regularly.
How much fibre should you get?
Dieticians recommend getting at least 18g of fibre per day. You can go up to 35-40g without any side effects.
If you get too much fibre in a short period of time, your digestion will go the other way – with possible bloating, gas and diarrhoea.
The perfect range for a low-carb dieter is around 25-30g a day.
Fibre comes from plants. The highest sources of fibre are grains, legumes and root vegetables.
Most grains and legumes are off limits on a low-carb diet. But some are low in carbs while also being high in fibre.
All vegetables contain some fibre. Unfortunately, the ones highest in fibre, like root vegetables, also tend to be high in carbs.
Most low-carb salad vegetables contain around 1-2g of net carbs. But there are some exceptions, that are both low in carbs and high in fibre.
If you have at least 1 cup of vegetables with every meal, you can easily get about half of your daily fibre requirement from them.
Avocados are full of healthy fats as well as fibre. Add avocado to salads, mash it and use as a spread, or make Mexican inspired dishes like guacamole.
Brussels sprouts are packed full of vitamins A and C, and quite high in fibre.
Brussels sprouts have a reputation of being bland, but that's only if they get boiled to death. Don't boil them – steam, fry or roast instead. Add plenty of fat to make a satisfying scrumptious side dish.
French artichoke is an interesting vegetable that's very versatile. You can steam it, make soups and sauces, marinade it, make it into a dip and all sorts of other possibilities.
Not to be confused with Jerusalem artichoke – which is a root vegetable and is much higher in carbs.
Berries are a perfect low-carb treat.
Most of them are reasonably low in carbs. The ones highest in fibre are raspberries and blackberries.
Eat them on their own, jazz them up with whipped cream, or try a low-carb berry recipe.
Now we are getting to real fibre treasures.
These seeds and nuts are much higher in fibre than veggies and berries, although not as easy to incorporate into your daily meals.
Flax is a popular ingredient for low-carb baking. Try making low-carb flax bread or crackers.
You can also add flax to your smoothies and salads, and sprinkle it on other foods.
Chia seeds are becoming very popular thanks to their stellar nutritional profile. Try a chia seed mousse or use them in baking.
Almonds are a low-carb superfood. You can have them whole as a snack. Or use ground almonds for low-carb desserts and baking.
Psyllium husk is the ultimate high-fibre champion. Unfortunately, it is pretty hard to eat on its own (sawdust comes to mind).
The easiest way to add it to food is by using it as a low-carb baking ingredient. It binds moisture so it helps to improve the texture of low-carb baked goodies.
The simplest way to add fibre to your diet is by taking supplements.
There are plenty of brands and products to choose from.
Psyllium husk powder is one of the best options. Although very high in fibre, it doesn't cause bloating or any other embarrassing side effects.
Dr Atkins recommended psyllium husks and ground flaxseeds to supplement fibre on Atkins Diet.
Is Truvia sweetener ok for low-carb diets?