3 ms·

So we should all pile into cities? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? We can't concentrate everyone in a walkable / bikeable area, it's just not feasible.

eropple 7y ago
Everyone? No. There are legitimate economic activities in non-urban places; there's unavoidable resource extraction, there are agricultural activities, that sort of thing. Most people? Sure. It requires re-thinking how we (Americans particularly) structure our cities, and will not be an overnight process, but what is preventing us from doing this generally? Aside from the idea that such re-thinking is impossible, anyway.
- mfatica 7y ago
  > but what is preventing us from doing this generally The fact that people don't actually want to do that? People are free to live their lives the way they want. There's no reason to pile most people into cities just "because cars"
  - eropple 7y ago
    Are they free to consume more and more limited resources in doing so without fairly compensating the body politic for that consumption? Or, put more bluntly: why must I and my children pay for them?
    - mfatica 7y ago
      If they have proper right to those resources then they certainly can consume them however they want.
      - eropple 7y ago
        Beyond the basic rights afforded by civil society one has remarkably few rights without corresponding responsibilities. Consumption comes with a lot of them. How are you proposing to fairly and equitably address those while leaving a better world for our children?
        mfatica 7y ago
        Not sure what methodology you follow, but freedom means freedom. If I don't care to leave a better world than that's my right. It doesn't make me a good person but freedom is freedom.
        eropple 7y ago
        So, to be clear, you don't subscribe to any social contract? None? You don't think there's any responsibility for one's externalities? None? Because uh. That's literally sociopathic.

eropple 7y ago

Everyone? No. There are legitimate economic activities in non-urban places; there's unavoidable resource extraction, there are agricultural activities, that sort of thing. Most people? Sure. It requires re-thinking how we (Americans particularly) structure our cities, and will not be an overnight process, but what is preventing us from doing this generally? Aside from the idea that such re-thinking is impossible, anyway.

mfatica 7y ago
> but what is preventing us from doing this generally The fact that people don't actually want to do that? People are free to live their lives the way they want. There's no reason to pile most people into cities just "because cars"
- eropple 7y ago
  Are they free to consume more and more limited resources in doing so without fairly compensating the body politic for that consumption? Or, put more bluntly: why must I and my children pay for them?
  - mfatica 7y ago
    If they have proper right to those resources then they certainly can consume them however they want.
    - eropple 7y ago
      Beyond the basic rights afforded by civil society one has remarkably few rights without corresponding responsibilities. Consumption comes with a lot of them. How are you proposing to fairly and equitably address those while leaving a better world for our children?
      - mfatica 7y ago
        Not sure what methodology you follow, but freedom means freedom. If I don't care to leave a better world than that's my right. It doesn't make me a good person but freedom is freedom.
        eropple 7y ago
        So, to be clear, you don't subscribe to any social contract? None? You don't think there's any responsibility for one's externalities? None? Because uh. That's literally sociopathic.