6 ms·

The people who live in an area, it seems, should rightfully decide the rules of that area. It's in their interest to stop competition with their existing proper

The people who live in an area, it seems, should rightfully decide the rules of that area. It's in their interest to stop competition with their existing property so they will vote against it. At the same time, everyone lives somewhere, and if everyone votes for anti-development policies there will not be enough houses to go around. I guess the policy hurts the up-and-coming to help the established. Still, people should have a right to determine the future of their own communities. I would be interested to hear if any philosophers have untangled this one, because I can clearly see the conflict of two good principles.

mcculley 5y ago
It is a mess in a lot of places. I have lived in Florida for 49 years. Retirees basically work against the interests of people who need to work and raise children. I don’t see any solution other than limiting the voting franchise to those with skin in the game.
- iso1631 5y ago
  Or move elsewhere. Retirees will struggle when there's nobody to wipe their ass because they can't afford to live there.
  - mcculley 5y ago
    They won’t move again. They have the political power. There will be an ever growing service economy with an ever decreasing standard of living. The system is working as designed.
    - iso1631 5y ago
      If the service workers vote with their feet and leave Florida, retirees'll be stuffed.
      - slt2021 5y ago
        thats why you have holes in the southern border, to keep bringing fresh meat willing to work for peanuts and without entitlements to the social safety net
        mcculley 5y ago
        There is a related problem in that the businesses profiting from illegal labor are rarely punished when there is a round of deportations. It is not an accident that those who complain loudly about illegal immigrants are often not checking the I-9s.
      - mcculley 5y ago
        We know that won’t happen. This is my point. It is not a healthy, free market for labor. The retirees have the political power. Enough people poor enough to pick up the slack will always be available.
jrs235 5y ago
>I would be interested to hear if any philosophers have untangled this one Georgism?
erehweb 5y ago
But what is the community that people have the right to determine the future of? The town? The county? The state? The U.S.?
iso1631 5y ago
People who are lucky enough to get the Oranges early in the game have an unfair advantage
handmodel 5y ago
I don't think you need to be a philosopher to realize the trade-offs. The issue is that if every community does this (as they pretty much have) then anyone whose family didn't have property 50 years ago will be stuck with bad housing and anyone whose family had housing 50 years ago will be able to fund their housing. Its a coordination problem. Clearly a small town may be sacrificing something by decreasing their own values with building - but if every town in the same country individually makes the optimal choice for themselves then the result for the country overall is not great for anyone.
jjk166 5y ago
> The people who live in an area, it seems, should rightfully decide the rules of that area This sounds nice, until you consider that "people who live in an area" is merely a proxy for community members, and a poor proxy at that. The people who work in an area are part of the community too, and should not be excluded from the decision making process. If towns can tax non-residents who work there, they can give them representation.
- slt2021 5y ago
  this is medieval England thinking, where only landlord had a vote and could decide the future of the country/community
  - iso1631 5y ago
    It's founding father thinking. Madison for example said "Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property.... " Back in 1776, you could vote in the US. If you were 1) White 2) Male 3) Owned property 4) Were not Catholic, Jewish or Quaker When Washington was elected in 1789, only 6% of the population could vote. Even as late as 1850, some states (North Carolina for example) still denied the vote to white men (let alone anyone else) who didn't own property, and it was 1964 when the idea of paying to vote was finally outlawed with the 24th amendment.

mcculley 5y ago

It is a mess in a lot of places. I have lived in Florida for 49 years. Retirees basically work against the interests of people who need to work and raise children. I don’t see any solution other than limiting the voting franchise to those with skin in the game.

iso1631 5y ago
Or move elsewhere. Retirees will struggle when there's nobody to wipe their ass because they can't afford to live there.
- mcculley 5y ago
  They won’t move again. They have the political power. There will be an ever growing service economy with an ever decreasing standard of living. The system is working as designed.
  - iso1631 5y ago
    If the service workers vote with their feet and leave Florida, retirees'll be stuffed.
    - slt2021 5y ago
      thats why you have holes in the southern border, to keep bringing fresh meat willing to work for peanuts and without entitlements to the social safety net
      - mcculley 5y ago
        There is a related problem in that the businesses profiting from illegal labor are rarely punished when there is a round of deportations. It is not an accident that those who complain loudly about illegal immigrants are often not checking the I-9s.
    - mcculley 5y ago
      We know that won’t happen. This is my point. It is not a healthy, free market for labor. The retirees have the political power. Enough people poor enough to pick up the slack will always be available.

jrs235 5y ago

>I would be interested to hear if any philosophers have untangled this one Georgism?

erehweb 5y ago

But what is the community that people have the right to determine the future of? The town? The county? The state? The U.S.?

iso1631 5y ago

People who are lucky enough to get the Oranges early in the game have an unfair advantage

handmodel 5y ago

I don't think you need to be a philosopher to realize the trade-offs. The issue is that if every community does this (as they pretty much have) then anyone whose family didn't have property 50 years ago will be stuck with bad housing and anyone whose family had housing 50 years ago will be able to fund their housing. Its a coordination problem. Clearly a small town may be sacrificing something by decreasing their own values with building - but if every town in the same country individually makes the optimal choice for themselves then the result for the country overall is not great for anyone.

jjk166 5y ago

> The people who live in an area, it seems, should rightfully decide the rules of that area This sounds nice, until you consider that "people who live in an area" is merely a proxy for community members, and a poor proxy at that. The people who work in an area are part of the community too, and should not be excluded from the decision making process. If towns can tax non-residents who work there, they can give them representation.

slt2021 5y ago
this is medieval England thinking, where only landlord had a vote and could decide the future of the country/community
- iso1631 5y ago
  It's founding father thinking. Madison for example said "Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property.... " Back in 1776, you could vote in the US. If you were 1) White 2) Male 3) Owned property 4) Were not Catholic, Jewish or Quaker When Washington was elected in 1789, only 6% of the population could vote. Even as late as 1850, some states (North Carolina for example) still denied the vote to white men (let alone anyone else) who didn't own property, and it was 1964 when the idea of paying to vote was finally outlawed with the 24th amendment.