3 ms·
people that moved here in the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more people being able to move here Well that cuts to the very heart of democracy doesn't i
by gaius 9y ago
people that moved here in the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more people being able to move here
Well that cuts to the very heart of democracy doesn't it? Why would the government of territory X not answer to the taxpayer-voter of X, over people who merely want to live there?
There are reasons why they might of course, enumerate those reasons and the real dynamic will come to light.
- jdietrich 9y agoThere is a fine line between democracy and mob rule. The Nash equilibrium for any sufficiently stable democratic system is for 49.9% of the electorate to be treated as subhuman. Democracy inevitably becomes tyrannical if civil institutions fail to defend the interests of the minority against the interests of the majority.
- akgerber 9y agoA big part of the issue is what level the decisions are made— in Japan, zoning is largely set by the national government, and in Ontario, at provincial level. In Silicon Valley (and most of the US), the decisions are made at the level of small suburbs consisting mostly of single-family homes, even though such decisions have can have huge impacts on the national economy.
- epistasis 9y agoIt also cuts to the core of property rights. If somebody is building something according to local laws, why should neighbors be allowed to stop that legal construction? That is what happens now, and it drives up construction costs dramatically, further driving up costs of the very very little new housing that gets built. What rights go along with property? Does it include the right to stop your neighbor from changing and improving their property?