Thanks for the detailed post. A few thoughts before the weekend: > the US's incumbent system of individuality versus the rest of the world's collectivism. >Ev

Thanks for the detailed post. A few thoughts before the weekend: > the US's incumbent system of individuality versus the rest of the world's collectivism. >Even if you value social harmony over individual choice the slow shift of the balance towards positive liberty in urban areas of the USA is bad if only because the USA is the last nation left that prioritizes the individual choice over social harmony. I do think it is a bit of a broad brush to paint the world in this manner, polarized between the individualist united states and the collectivist everybody else. Certainly the difference between China and the United States is day and night, but I find it unlikely there is such a wide difference between say Australia and the United States. > This is positive liberty. It is not inherently bad but it often leads to troubles with authoritarianism due to the concentration of power and acceptance of the use of force to interference with individual choices. This is bad and often has lead to very bad things happening. While I can't disagree that this "positive liberty" can certainly be bad, or even terrible, when misused, I don't agree this meets the standard I was looking for, that the usage of positive liberty as seen in US cities is bad for US society. >This fits snugly with the US founding documents like the declaration of independence and the bill of rights. I can't say I disagree, however I question how much of a role I would place the countries historical individualism in our modern public policy. Do I want a repeat of the Boston Molasses Flood because it's that important to me that we embrace our historical individualism, therefor we must not place restrictions on the activity of those doing private business in a city?