Dave Roland beat me to it, but I was going to talk about the "Call to Oneness" article for addressing crime in north St. Louis.

I think this is a great idea, and one that worked very well in the Los Angeles area during the height of gang violence in the early 1990s (when my burgeoning love of rap music was beginning).

Of course, I take issue with the arguments in his other post. There is a difference between protectionism (like occupational licensing laws) and laws that lower information costs and help ensure that a market system can exist (such as, for one specific example, accounting regulations). This doesn’t mean we can’t challenge these regulations or strive to constantly find better solutions to the way in which we organize society. I certainly would support that.

But here’s my objection to the Village Law (and to Dave’s argument in general). A very wealthy and politically connected individual wants to incorporate his own village to get around zoning laws and build a casino. In Dave’s world, his poor and politically naïve neighbors can simply take him court to reclaim the damage to their property from this new development because I’m sure everyone has the resources and time to fight a long, drawn-out legal battle against a team of high-priced lawyers working for the casino development during the next 10 to 15 years.

Sorry Dave, but I don’t see that happening. Not even in libertarian paradise.