6 ms·
Better yet, we could wall in the criminals and declare the inside of their "cells" to be the outside, thus walling them out.
by EForEndeavour 8y ago
Better yet, we could wall in the criminals and declare the inside of their "cells" to be the outside, thus walling them out.
- scarejunba 8y agoNah, to do that you need to curtail people’s freedom. What I’m proposing is simply that we privatize large parts of society and exclude people from the private areas based on their tendency to be bad actors. It’s not about restricting freedom. It’s about enabling free safe association for everyone who opts in. Like a massive HOA.
- snazz 8y agoI think “denying food, shelter, and water” counts as curtailing people’s freedom.
- scarejunba 8y agoThey’re welcome to it elsewhere. I’m not going to give it to them. You also won’t have the situation where you see them in immediate danger because you’re not going to give them access to your area. Obviously, you have to help if they’re right in front of you, but there’s no obligation for me to help feed a starving family in Appalachia now and I don’t think there will be one in the situation I’m describing. So all you have to do is ensure you’re never in a situation where you can help someone in immediate danger.
- deadmetheny 8y agoYes, that shining paragon of virtue that is well-loved by everybody, the HOA.
- scarejunba 8y agoHaha, Revealed Preferences show that people don’t abhor them as much as they say. They choose to live there for all the lovely things they provide and enforce.
- deadmetheny 8y agoDo they choose to live within HOA neighborhoods, or do they have little choice given that over half of the residential homes in the USA are bound by one? I would like to see if your source claims people like the HOA or if they are forced to tolerate them due to lack of options.
- MrMorden 8y agoDevelopers in the US have no choice; the city/county won't permit a subdivision without an HOA.
- dragonwriter 8y agoDevelopers love HOAs, they initially (until the development is largely sold) completely control them and they are a tool for maintaining the image they want to sell later units. No one is forcing developers to have HOAs. (If there is policy favoring them, it was lobbied for by developers.)
- bena 8y agoIt also allows them to reclaim and resell units while swindling the people who bought the lot.
- aaron-santos 8y agoExpect this to be immediately co-opted by political camps to exacerbate and codify divisions that exist today.
- scarejunba 8y agoIs that so bad? We can protect human freedom through the US constitution.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoThe 2nd-6th amendment have not exactly been effective at protecting the human rights they affirm at the state and city level. Where I live I have to get permission from the government (good luck if you're not white) to own the tools to defend myself from physical harm and the government can stop me and seize my property on a whim. I believe we need more defense in depth. We need our human rights to be protected by every level of government and informally by society itself.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Frondo 8y agoYou are absolutely proposing restricting freedom, just that you want to be the one defining how to do so, i.e. you want to be in charge. It is a story as old as time.
- scarejunba 8y agoWould you let me into your house? How is this any different?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dvtrn 8y agoWhat I’m proposing is simply that we privatize large parts of society and exclude people from the private areas based on their tendency to be bad actors. Have these people been convicted of crimes? Because if they haven't, then yes, actually you are absolutely advocating restricting freedoms, and stumbling dangerously close to advocating redlining which has been illegal in the US for decades. Edit: Pardon my double post, I think a page got stuck loading on me somewhere.
- scarejunba 8y agoNo more than you're curtailing my freedom by not letting me into your home. I've been convicted of nothing but you won't just let me into your home.
- dvtrn 8y agoAn individual private citizen not letting you onto their property is categorically different from the state passing laws dictating where individuals who aren't prisoners, captives or wards of the state may travel, commune, and reside--and it's an astonishing notion that anyone would try to conflate one with the other and expect to be taken seriously when they say it's "not about curtailing freedom".
- scarejunba 8y agoAh, but I wasn't requiring the state to pass laws. Only for the state to allow for private enterprise to build safe places using this trust factor.
- dvtrn 8y agoAh, but I wasn't requiring the state to pass laws A word of advice then: best state that immediately from the very beginning next time, instead of equivocating your way around the point for days. The minute you start talking about "curtailing freedom" there is one inextricable link that conjures in the mind from this type of language: the state. Backing off it once the horse has been beaten into putty to say "oh I wasn't talking about the state" just looks like you're doing all of this for sport and not attempting to hold an actual meaningful position before finding a convenient escape hatch out of the discussion.
- btilly 8y agoI am trying to understand the mentality of someone who can say Like a massive HOA while thinking that this is a good thing. Have you never dealt with an HOA in your life? Have you never known someone who has?
- scarejunba 8y agoI mean, like half of all Americans choose to live in HOA covered areas. They love to hate them. They don't actually hate them.