I'm not an economist, but the first definition that came up for me was:
> an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.
And the word unrestricted is underlined. It seems to me that land use restrictions (I mean, it's literally in the name) are directly working against this philosophy.
Unrestricted in this sense means that both parties are able to deploy their capital as they choose, and specifically without outside requirements.
In this case someone took a piece of capital (land), and traded most of the rights, but not all to someone else.
The buyer took the deal knowing that they hadn't purchased unrestricted use of that land, but instead a limited use of the land.
Both parties agreed to the deal, and no other party restricted their actions, or unfairly restricted competition. No party was coerced, and they could have negotiated for different terms.\
An example of a great non-market restriction would be: you can't enforce any land use restriction covenants.
JumpCrisscross|1 year ago
This is an obvious grey area on the abrogation of property rights.
aliasxneo|1 year ago
> an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.
And the word unrestricted is underlined. It seems to me that land use restrictions (I mean, it's literally in the name) are directly working against this philosophy.
dghlsakjg|1 year ago
In this case someone took a piece of capital (land), and traded most of the rights, but not all to someone else.
The buyer took the deal knowing that they hadn't purchased unrestricted use of that land, but instead a limited use of the land.
Both parties agreed to the deal, and no other party restricted their actions, or unfairly restricted competition. No party was coerced, and they could have negotiated for different terms.\
An example of a great non-market restriction would be: you can't enforce any land use restriction covenants.
yencabulator|1 year ago