The Psychology of the End

A Different Kind of Look at Eschatology

Here's a series I did a while back about the psychology of thinking you know when the world will end.  God doesn't tell us because it will radically affect our behavior...for the worst.

Psychology of the End (Part 1) - A Different Kind of Look at Eschatology

In sports, each team has a game plan. In football it might be to establish the run, then develop the pass, all the while controlling the line of scrimmage, field position and the clock. Following the game plan will result in victory. In baseball it might be to have the starting pitcher go six or seven innings, then turning it over to the bullpen to finish the game. In higher education, the student can have a game plan. Before the semester, he buys all his books. Then he studies hard, does all his homework and uses all of this to become familiar enough with the material to not only pass the midterm and final exams, but to get an "A." Living in a home with a yard might consist of mowing the lawn, painting and general maintenance. A game plan for these things consists of routine, repetition and consistency. But the game plan is best when it is a comprehensive one. One where all the situations are considered and can be addressed when faced. One that will not let small things grow into big problems.

But when the end of a thing is near, game plans and strategies change, sometimes radically. A team that is losing in the last minute of a football game will ditch all of its routine strategies and engage in acts of desperation, doing things it would never do at any other time of the game. With a runner on third early in a baseball game, the defensive team may concede the run to get an out. When it's the winning run in the 9th inning, both the infield and outfield are pulled in in a desperate attempt to get the out at home plate. A basketball team will purposely foul the other team in hopes that it misses the free throws in order to get the ball back. A hockey team will abandon its goalie for an extra offensive player to try to tie the game. A student will suddenly cram for finals. If a house is to be torn down to make way for a bigger project, the lawn won't get mowed. A graphics project with a deadline will result in long hours, plenty of coffee and scraps all over the floor at the last minute. Conversely, a team that is winning at the end of a game will be lazy and slow on purpose, substituting inferior players, etc.

The same things occur in real life with regards to eschatology. If somebody believes the end is really and suddenly near, life will be lived in a completely different manner, even if in desperation or laziness. In my next post, I will deal with this reality.

Psychology of the End (Part 2) - A Different Kind of Look at Eschatology

In my first post, I looked at how people change their behavior - sometimes even radically - when the end of a thing is approaching. Each of the examples I gave was for things where the timing of the end was generally known at the beginning. There are also things for which the end can come suddenly or unexpectedly. In life, we generally are born, go through childhood, become grownups with our own life, engage in a career, plan for retirement, retire, then eventually die. But a diagnosis of a terminal disease part way through life will change somebody's behavior radically. Some people quit their jobs to be with their families. In baseball, rain can threaten to bring the early end of a game. The team that is leading will hurry to get an official game in by completing the 5th inning, while the losing team will delay. Then, once the 5th inning is complete, the teams reverse their roles. Behavior changes with an unexpected facing of the end.

With regards to the end of the world and the return of Christ, Jesus tells us not only that we won't know the day or hour, but that we will not even know the times or seasons. I believe that God is wise enough to know human behavior, and if man knows the time of the end, he will most certainly change his behavior - radically. This is why God doesn't let us know. God has a plan of normal, routine behavior for us, and He wants us to stick to the plan that He laid out. If we know the end (really, if we think we know the end), we will change our behavior accordingly so that in anticipation of the end, we will change our focus from obeying God to obeying what we think about the end. We will have ceased to obey God. We will have changed from walking by faith to walking by sight. Next, I'll look at how this has fleshed its way out in history, including my personal history, and how different eschatological viewpoints affect our behavior.

Psychology of the End (Part 3) - A Different Kind of Look at Eschatology

Many "ends" have come in the history of man. Many groups have predicted the end of the world. Other ends have been postulated, such as Y2K. People's behavior has radically changed as a result. Although Y2K wasn't the "end of the world" per se, many people stockpiled arms in bunkers in Montana or Idaho in waiting for the collapse of the government following the global failure of computer chips. My church gained a few families from a church up the road because their pastor moved his family to a bunker in Montana in mid 1999 and closed down the church. In December, I bought several months of canned goods to protect myself "just in case." In the year 999, people feared the end of the world because it was a thousand years since Christ came to earth.

In 1994, my first church, led by Harold Camping, had quite a shaking up as a result of Camping's end of the world prediction. He first made his prediction public in 1992. Many people did strange things while facing the end. Some people quit jobs, some people cancelled bible studies, some people out of jobs delayed getting new ones, some people gave huge sums of money to Camping's ministry - even entire life savings - to "get the gospel out" at the last minute. Although I wasn't at that church until the week after the prediction date, I heard plenty of stories about odd things. Just two days earlier, their church picnic had people giving tearful goodbyes to one another. Church leaders were up late at night answering phone calls from terrified parishoners. Some people dropped out of life after the end didn't occur.

In the bible, Paul warns Timothy that men named Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection already took place and that it was upsetting the faith of some believers. The end has a powerful affect on people, so it should come as no surprise that one's view of eschatology can greatly affect how people live in the here and now.

Baptism: Another View (Entire Series In A Single Post)

Each title below is a link to the original post for that part.

Baptism: Another View (Part 1)

Since I have been a Christian, there has been an ongoing debate about baptism, and it has gone on for centuries before me. There are two major views I have been exposed to, and the debate is about the meaning of, reason for, mode of, time of and recipients of baptism. The debate I have been exposed to has been in Protestant circles between those who believe in paedo-baptism and those who believe in believer's baptism.

Paedo-baptists believe that children of believing parents (including infants) are to be baptized because they are members of God's covenant people. Those who believe in believer's baptism (sometimes called "credo-baptists"), on the other hand, believe that only those who make a credible profession of Christ should be baptized. This is usually limited to adults, or minors who are old enough to know of their conversion and can express and show their repentance, and it is these who are included in the covenant.

I think that there is room for another view of baptism, different from the two popular views, and I will be writing more parts to this in the form of a blog series. It will be similar to my old "Baptism: A Third View" series, but with some revisions and other information. This new series will be titled "Baptism: Another View" and will appear in the blog series list in the margin. Any input from readers will be welcome.

Baptism: Another View (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this series, I gave a basic outline as to the two dominant views on water baptism in Protestantism as I have heard them. There are more views of baptism than these two, such as the Roman Catholic and certain cult views, with ideas of baptismal regeneration, but I'm addressing dominant protestantism here. Another view I propose here and I will follow with explanation as to why.

Water baptism isn't necessarily the sign and seal of the new covenant, Scripture isn't detailed in any prescription as to mode of water baptism (whether sprinkling, pouring or immersion), nor is it detailed in any prescription as to who are proper subjects of water baptism (adults only, professing believers of whatever age, children of covenant believers, etc.). I will explain this further in future posts in this series. Scripture isn't even absolute in describing proper timing of baptism in relation to either profession, conversion, discipleship or birth. Not only this, but Scripture isn't always clear as to which type of baptism it speaks about in a certain passage, whether water baptism, baptism of fire or baptism of the Holy Spirit. In conclusion, I have decided that a wide array of modes, subjects and times of water baptism upon people throughout Christian history are not contrary to scripture, and therefore scripturally valid, and I am determined not to hold most of these in contempt or nullification simply because any particular church, denomination or theological circle says so. In short, I recognize various people's baptisms as they come from differing traditions.

I realize that what I just said could start excommunication proceedings in many churches and denominations, or it could prevent me from becoming a member in certain churches, and also potentially stands as fuel for intense cyber flaming (which I have experienced on this very topic in the past). So be it. But that is the sad part, in my view. Why is such a thing necessary? In my next post, I will give my personal story as I have interacted with each of the two views I explained in Part 1.

Baptism: Another View (Part 3)

Now for my explanation and personal history of my views of baptism. I've held to both the paedo-baptist and believer-baptist views, and have attended at least one church that held to each, and have been part of more than one theological circle that held to each. I have switched from each view to the other, and held to each view at least once. I admit much confusion over the issue throughout my first 10 plus years as a Christian. I've listened to fierce debaters on the subject from each side, always seemingly one-upping the other in terms of clever arguing, and have read numerous articles, as well as book chapters and systematic theologies on the topic. About five years ago I realized why the subject was so difficult for me, and once I realized why, I gained peace before God for the first time ever. I had a reason for "another view."

The reason is that for all the views I have ever heard or believed, doctrines of baptism have relied so heavily upon systematic views of the new covenant. These views vary wildly, and as a result, so do views on baptism. Baptismal distinctives that I've been exposed to, I believe, are based more on man's theology than on Scripture, with Scripture used to proof-text the view. But one thing is clear to me, believers in Jesus Christ should (at some time and in some way) be baptized in water.

Some views of baptism nullify or partially nullify other views. For example, many believer-baptist churches will require re-baptism of newly professing believers that were baptized as children and raised in Presbyterian or other Reformed churches, but who believe themselves as never having previously come to faith. Some paedo-baptist churches require the same thing. Some Baptists will accept the infant baptisms in paedo-baptist Protestant churches, but at the same time reject infant baptisms in Roman Catholic churches, as will some paedo-baptist Protestants. This last group of modern paedo-baptists, who decry "the error of the anabaptists" of centuries ago, do the same thing they reject. Early reformers generally viewed baptism within the Roman church as valid. Some protestant churches I've been familiar with have lists of churches, cults and movements whose baptisms won't be recognized when considering a believer new to their church. Some views not only hold other views in contempt, but reserve the harshest charges of sin in the practice of those views. I'll discuss this in future posts.

In trying to be consistent with my statement of "another view", I've decided that if a Christian (whether Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, Pentecostal, etc) is individually satisfied with his own [reasonable] circumstances under which he was baptized, I will allow him that liberty and view his baptism as valid. I will have more to say about this in upcoming posts.

Baptism: Another View (Part 4)

Shortly after writing my first several posts on another view of baptism a few years ago in a different blog series, it dawned on me just how I should characterize the divergent sectarian views of baptism: as traditions.

These are traditions which don't have enough Scriptural warrant to pass as binding law, but there are many defenders of these traditions that seem to think the bible mandates their view. This has, I think, been my problem. I've been asking this question: "Which view does Scripture mandate?", when I should have been asking, "Does the bible mandate a view at all?" Defenders of each view have taken to proof-texting, polemics, and a vocation of anathematizing their opponents. Confusion is often the dominating industry in the baptism debate with plenty of minimum wage, entry level positions. The following is a mock argument, the type of which I'm all too familiar with: (P=paedo-baptist, B=believer baptist)

P: Baptism is the NT equivalent of OT circumcision, so infants should be baptized.

B: There's no evidence in the NT of children being baptized.

P: But the households of new converts were, so there must have been children in those households.

B: You're making assumptions. It could just have easily been believers old enough to know.

P: Well history is on our side, because there's archaeological evidence that infant baptism was practiced as early as the second century AD.

B: But no earlier, of course. It was a Roman Catholic doctrine introduced to soothe the fears of parents who wondered if their unbaptized children would go to heaven if they died. The Reformation was a good thing, but they didn't go far enough in dealing with Rome's doctrines.

P: Well, let's just see what the Westminster Confession has to say.

B: Huh? This is a Scriptural issue, so we should limit our conversation to the bible alone and not bring history into it.

P: "XXVIII, IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized."

B: You're off course again.

P: "XXVIII, III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person."

B: Well, you and they both obviously missed the meaning of the Greek word, baptizo, which means literally "to immerse." The writers of the King James bible, through built-in fear of the dominant Catholic church, neglected to translate the word as "immerse," but instead transliterated the word as "baptize." The result is that the English speaking world is in confusion about even the biblical mode of baptism.

P: Say, you're bringing enough of your own history into this as well. You miss all the biblical references to sprinkling in the OT, and how Col. 2:11 ties baptism and circum...

On and on this goes. Jesus had a lot to say about traditions. He really didn't condemn those who held to traditions, but had a problem with those who held tradition equal or above the word of God. I'm afraid many throughout church history have done just this with their arguments about baptism. I know I did. Forgive me, Lord.

Baptism: Another View (Part 5)

In this post I'd like to offer my opinion of the effects (or lack thereof) of Christian parents or churches having baptism administered to their children. In other words, just how "effecatious" is infant baptism?

Each side in the Protestant baptism debate has its criticisms of the other with respect to the baptizing of children. Paedo-baptists often make the claim that Baptists' refusal to baptize their children has negative results. Because children are not baptized in Baptist churches, Baptists are sometimes accused of neglecting would-be elect children and are denied the very sign of the covenant itself. The failure to baptize children is then viewed as the worst thing that one could do to them. God's blessings come through obedience to the covenant, so Baptists are cutting blessings off from their children. Because Baptists sometimes view their children as unregenerate until a profession of faith is made, parents are tempted to be lax in their teaching and preaching to children because they're looked at as being not yet in the covenant; in other words the presumption of unregeneration until proven false through profession of the faith takes away from the church's duty to the children. Their churches, the argument goes, are then overrun with worldly people within a generation or two, and apostasy soon results. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that we should see a greater conversion rate of children in paedo-baptist churches.

Baptists, on the other hand, often criticize paedo-baptists for baptizing infants because these infants include all future false professors as church members from birth. Their churches, the argument goes, are then overrun by worldly people within a generation or two, and apostasy soon results. This supposedly explains to some degree the problems with theology in mainline denominations. The conclusion is sometimes that baptizing infants is the worst thing one could do to them. The baptizing of only professing adults (or children old enough), safeguards the church from these problems because the non-professing are never allowed heavy influence in church matters. Also, paedo-baptism can lead to a false assurance of salvation because of the "covenant promise." I've heard from Baptists who happen to have attended paedo-baptist churches (maybe because it's the only good church in the area) that a covenant smugness can take over and parents are tempted to be lax in their teaching and preaching to children because they're looked at as being already in the covenant; in other words the presumption of election until proven false through denying of the faith takes away from the church's duty to the children. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that we should see a greater conversion rate of children in Baptist churches.  The argument each side levels at the other is essentially the same.

But I've had enough experience with both types of churches to know that neither has the corner on their children growing up to be true Christians. Baptists are just as good at placing their children as recipients of the blessings of the covenant, i.e. teaching, bible memorization, church attendance, prayer, education, and the rest, as are paedo-baptists. Paul takes up the argument in Romans 2 that when Gentiles do the law, their uncircumcision is counted as circumcision. "If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?" Rom. 2:26. Both sides see that their children are to be discipled according to the Great Commission.  So, then, I don't think that whether children are baptized or not is the real issue, but whether the parents and churches raise their children in the fear and instruction of the Lord.

I've certainly heard of many wayward paedo-baptists who were not born again until adulthood, after straying from the faith, give testimony to God's remembering them because of the promise through baptism, because their parents had them baptized. Well, there are many wayward born-again-as-adult Baptists who make the same claim with respect to their parents raising them well in the faith as children. I believe it's about adherence to the New Covenant itself, and not a supposed sign, that God honors.  Not that baptism isn't important, as both sides agree that it is, it's just when children are to be baptized that is closer to the center of the argument.

Baptism: Another View (Part 6)

One problem I have with both Baptist and paedo-baptist theology regarding baptism is the lack of clear scriptural descriptions of their views. It seems to me that if baptism is supposed to be administered to only adult believers after conversion, then I think the bible would say so in no uncertain terms. If it is to be administered to infants, then the same should be true. It's that way with circumcision. It's that way with church discipline. It's that way with how to pray, how many times to forgive, who to visit in their distress that describes true religion. It's that way with all duties of man before God. Man's duties are spelled out relatively clearly so that most of us can either "get it" or have somebody easily explain it to us.

Take circumcision for example. In Genesis 17:11-12, a great deal of information is packed into less than two verses:

And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.

What, where, how, to whom and when are all answered. No guesswork. No thousand page systematic theology volume. No ecclesiastical traditions. It is named "circumcision", it is to be "in the flesh of your foreskin", it is called "the sign of the covenant", it is to be administered to "every male", "who is eight days old." Not seven days, not nine, not in the flesh of your knee, and it's not called "surfing." Church discipline is "if your brother sins" and is "in private", then with "one or two more", then "tell it to the church", then excommunication.

Okay, it's true that many points of theology are quite arduous in their developments and have been hammered out over millennia, and the wisdom necessary to live everyday life is constructed line upon line, precept upon precept and isn't even complete by the time we die. But the basics of our religion are simple, to the point and spelled out by God. Baptism, I think, is no different. The great commission commands that disciples are to be made of all the nations, and they are to be baptized. But...
 
All the information we need about baptism is spelled out. It is to be done with water, believers should be baptized, it should be done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Liberty as to mode (sprinkling, pouring, immersion) and subject (infant/adult/professor, family/household member/church attendee) I think is allowed for the simple reason than none of these things are clearly spelled out. What is clearly spelled out with respect to children is instruction in the Lord - educating them in the Word, obedience to parents, not provoking them to wrath, etc.
 
It is interesting that claims of these baptismal things being spelled out are really nothing more than sectarian theological conclusions of non-baptismally specific passages applied to baptism. Theological presuppositions about other doctrines are brought to baptism. When Jesus said, "suffer the little children", he was not speaking about baptism specifically. Only a theological leap in logic does this. Also, nowhere in the New Testament is baptism spoken of as either the sign or seal of the New Covenant, even though circumcision is spoken of as a sign to Abraham (Rom 4). Colossians 2:11-12 doesn't equate circumcision and baptism either. Only the same theological leap does this.
 
A final word for this post. I'm not against baptism at all. We should be baptized with water. What I'm saying is that Baptists and paedo-baptists should learn not to condemn each other for their non-biblical (I'm careful to not say "un-biblical") traditions of baptism.

Zoning Laws (Entire Series In A Single Post)

I've decided to put all the parts to this series in one post, in consecutive order, and update this post each time I add another part and link to it. So, here it is, in its entirety so far:

Zoning Laws (Part 1) - State Control Over Life

My grandfather had as one of his rules of life, this: he would never live (or work) anywhere that would not allow him to walk to work. Such can only be a dream for me. I've never been able to even come close to living close to where I work, or working close to where I live. This is true for many Americans.

Modern zoning laws have among the highest negative impact, and least acknowledged affect, of any legislations of civil government. They are foundational to the American way of life itself, yet are instrumental in causing or enhancing many of our social ills. They dictate where people can live, work, shop, recreate - every aspect of life is governed by zoning laws. Not only this, but they essentially create segregation by class, and are responsible for creating many of the problems with homelessness we see. Low job availability, long commutes, traffic jams, urban sprawl, racism and contempt for the poor are planted, watered and harvested by zoning laws. Yet most people don't have a clue that this is true.

I'll be looking at zoning laws and their affects in this new series.

Zoning Laws (Part 2) Segregation by Class

One of my blogging friends recently wrote that he lived in a well-to-do community and that the churches in communities like his needed to be creative in carrying out God's commands to help the poor. Wealthy communities have very few or no visible poor at all. Another blogging friend wrote that he grew up in a very poor community and that the poverty he experienced gave him some reservations about capitalism as an economic system.

One thing these two had in common, and this is true in news stories of every nature, is that entire communities have a class status. They are wealthy, or poor, or lower-middle class, or the 'hood, or upper-middle class or blue collar, etc. We live in communities with a fairly consistent level of wealth of those who live there. We simply accept this as part of the landscape of life and never give it a second thought, or even a first one.

Starting with residential housing, zoning laws establish minimum lot sizes on which a house can be built. The simple law of supply and demand establishes "market value" for that community. Because there is a minimum lot size, and a corresponding market value for that size lot, zoning laws effectively establish the minimum level of wealth required to live in that community. Communities that are more desirable to live in have higher wealth thresholds. This effectively eliminates the ability of the poor to live in those communities.

In part 1, I mentioned that I've never been able to live in a community where I worked. If I were allowed to buy smaller lots, even to build a smaller house, than what zoning laws currently allow, I could live close to work. But I'm not allowed to do that, so I can't live in the community where I work.

Zoning Laws (Part 3) Segregation by Class

Zoning laws also limit the number of dwellings and/or families that can live within a piece of property. "Single family" residential is just that. One family must bear the burden of the minimum "market value" price of the minimum lot size combined with maximum numbers of families allowed to live there.

Only recently did my county allow secondary "in-law" units to be built on a piece of property. They're starting to notice the immense problems their zoning laws have created. The sad part is that they fail to realize their laws created the problems to begin with.

Zoning Laws (Part 4) Segregation by Class

I live in the fourth largest, and the most expensive housing market in the US - the San Francisco Bay Area. Since zoning laws essentially mandate a minimum level of wealth necessary to live in any given community, each community has its own threshold. Generally, the closer to the financial center of the area, the more expensive the housing because that's where the best jobs are.

But since zoning laws create an artificial threshold for living in any given community, job holders in the wealthier communities must live further away in outlying communities. Back in the 90's, the Bay Area's more upscale suburban cities began to discover that most of their "essential" city employees (i.e. police, fire, parks maintenance, etc.) weren't residents of those cities. They lived elsewhere. That's because it was impossible for these people to live in those cities on the salaries they received - the artificially imposed housing prices were too high. And since the only candidates for these positions had to live far away in less expensive communities, it became much more difficult to fill these positions.

Imagine passing a law that mandates the segregation of people according to class. A huge uproar among the people would occur. Such a thing would be unthinkable in America today. Although completely unintended, this is exactly what zoning laws accomplish.

Zoning Laws (Part 5) Bad Traffic

Zoning laws effectively establish a minimum wealth level to live in a given community. But jobs within those communities do not all pay at a level that allows the worker to live there. Most must live elsewhere. The only way for them to get to work is to commute from an affordable community where they live to a community that will offer jobs that pay well enough.

This creates bad traffic. Each community I've worked in has been way beyond my means to live there. The last few have been very wealthy suburban bedroom communities that have also had huge corporate business parks, stretching for miles, that offer tens of thousands of jobs at all pay levels. The freeways are parking lots at commute hour.

Zoning Laws (Part 6) Separation of the Poor

Since zoning laws essentially set the threshold wealth level of each community, the poor have little choice but to live only in the communities that they can afford. This means that the poor are usually lumped all together in a given community. The rich can afford to live elsewhere, so they usually do.

When the poor are lumped into one community, and the rich and their businesses can afford to thrive in other communities, the poor have diminished access to good jobs, thus reinforcing their poverty.

Zoning Laws (Part 7) Scarcity of Lots, Not Land

Because zoning laws have set minimum lot sizes within a jurisdiction, not only is a minimum wealth threshold set for living there, the number of lots available in that community is fixed. Land owners do not have the freedom to subdivide into lots small enough to accommodate market needs. Instead, the number of lots available is limited by law. An artificially low supply of lots is maintained, and with no decrease in demand, land costs are artificially higher than they would be with a free market. This further hinders the poor (or middle class) from being able to live in a desirable community.

Zoning Laws (Part 8) Israel as Community

The last time I read through the four gospels, I noticed something I hadn't seen before. Quite often, Jesus' dealing with the people came in settings where the social classes were integrated. In the account of the woman who wiped His feet with her tears, the Pharisee thought to himself that if Jesus knew what manner of woman she was, he wouldn't be associating with her. But the striking thing about this account is that she was in that very Pharisee's house. If he knew what manner of woman she was, why was she in his house to begin with? It seems that the poor had access to not only the neighborhoods the rich lived in, but sometimes to their property too.

Gleaning laws, and others, put the rich and poor together in the same community. Ruth, a Moabite woman, happened upon a prominent member of the community, Boaz. The rest is history as they say. When rich and poor live together in the same community, it is far easier for the rich to minister to the poor. God understands this well, but we moderns prefer zoning laws that prevent such mercy.

Zoning Laws (Part 9) McMansion Suburbia

SuperSize me. American suburbia has entered a phase where house sizes are continually increasing for the same (or smaller) size families that live in them. This is often criticized as consumerism run rampant, is looked upon as an increase in selfishness and materialism, and is preached against by both environmentalists and religious leaders. But a closer look reveals something different.

Since zoning laws dictate minimum lot sizes, and thus limits the availability of lots, an artificially high price of land results. This is true of land prices, but not of construction costs. So over time there is an increase of land value versus house value. The piece of dirt is the biggest factor in the price of a home. What this does is creates a false sense of value through building a larger house. If a buyer could buy a 1000 square foot house for $1.1 million and a 3000 square foot house for $1.2 million, most are likely to opt for the latter. Those marginalized people who can afford a $1.1M house, but not a $1.2M house will simply buy the 3000 square foot house in the next community level down. Living life in one's house is more important than living on the land that house is on, even though the land costs more. For only 10% more money, one can obtain three times the house on the same piece of land. So, for the value, the largest house makes the most sense. Developers know this very well. People want a house, but the land is the biggest cost.

This has led to the latest building fad here in the San Francisco area, known as the "knockdown." People are now buying houses, let's say a ranch house built in the 60's, and they don't like the ugly architecture or small size. They bulldoze the house, because it's value is so small compared to the land on it. They then build a new, larger house in its place. It sounds ridiculous, but it makes economic sense.

Now something about value. Buying the "family size" product at the store is of value because at a larger size, the cost per unit is lower. It is more valuable for a family to buy this size than twice the amount of the regular size. But there's a side to it that we tend not to think about. For the individual, actually buying the smaller size, even though it has a higher cost per unit, can have the most value. If the bulk size item is too large for me to consume and will go bad before I can use it, or if I don't have the space to store it, then the smaller size is the best value for me because I won't be wasting money on something I can't fully use.

But for many people, zoning laws actually prohibit them from gaining the best value in land because the smaller size land item is unavailable. Imagine that. Getting a good land value is against the law! So people simply do what is the next best thing. Value is transferred from the land to the house. McMansion suburbia has more to do with reacting to zoning laws than with greed and selfishness.

Zoning Laws (Part 10) Combined With Other Laws

Zoning laws are combined with other laws to create some more road blocks to freedom. Tax laws are frequently used along with zoning laws to create excessive incomes for governments to play with. Property is re-zoned according to the amount of tax money that is projected for governments to receive. Property taxes are often used to fund public schools. Sales taxes also act as an incentive for governments to re-zone property as commercial. Eminent domain laws are used to confiscate private property in the re-zoning process without regard to private property rights.

Zoning Laws (Part 11) Combined With Other Laws (2)

Zoning laws can also have a combined effect with other laws such as strict building codes, local building ordinances and building permit processes. Building codes and ordinances make construction more expensive, and the permit process not only adds more cost, but sets a time limit for completion of construction. This adds hidden expense in that a greater amount of money is needed up-front for a project.

The overall effect of all these laws is a higher minimum standard of living. But this standard of living is mandated by law without allowing for the means to attain this standard. People who cannot meet this minimum level created by law sometimes end up homeless. Homelessness is often mandated by law without people knowing that this is the case.

Zoning Laws (Part 12) Zoning As Theft

Jim Fedako at Anti-Positivist carries one of his own articles on zoning laws. He suggests that zoning laws constitute theft of private property, and those who support zoning laws are the thieves. Read it here.

To see all the posts in this series in reverse consecutive order, click here.