3 ms·
You know, I used to be a hardcore libertarian, but I've reconsidered a bit. The density of cities like Manhattan/SF mean you have to have some level of regulat
by eldavido 11y ago
You know, I used to be a hardcore libertarian, but I've reconsidered a bit.
The density of cities like Manhattan/SF mean you have to have some level of regulation above and beyond what makes sense when everyone has an acre of his own land, to do with what we chooses. Whether it's noise, pollution, traffic safety, fire codes, etc., I think giving up a little bit more freedom than you would living on, say, a farm, is the price of living in a place with so much jammed in to so little space.
Maybe something to think about, if you take umbrage with people "imposing their whimsies" (I'm not being sarcastic, I really think about this a lot). Austin is nice, but it's a car-city. Show me one walkable city without the petty tyranny of city government and I'd move there pretty quickly.
- bmelton 11y agoI'm kind of a hybrid, really. I consider myself a libertarian at times, but mostly, a constitutionalist. I find that I object to most of the laws passed federally, but don't mind them so much when they're passed at the level of a municipality, city or even state (y'know, 10th amendment). In short, I don't believe in one-size-fits-all policies, as while I think a $15 minimum wage might work wonderfully in places like San Francisco, or NYC, I think they'd be disastrous in places like Alaska, or Arkansas. Regardless, much of the legislation I see being passed in places like San Francisco are fairly arbitrary, and that's the sort of thing I was responding to in the grand-parent. For what it's worth, I tend to think less of these impositions as tyranny because, specifically, if I don't like what's going on in San Francisco, I can move to Austin.
- stoic 11y agoWe've got a bag ban here, too. ;)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]