4 ms·

> A school has existed since 1868 yet people move near it and think they should have the final say on what the school does. Lots of things have existed for a l

> A school has existed since 1868 yet people move near it and think they should have the final say on what the school does. Lots of things have existed for a long time, in the context of a society where they have always had to coexist and interact with others. Why would existing for some time give them license to affect the community and people around them in any way? This isn't like someone moving next to a pub and demand they stop playing music, or next to a farm and complain about the smell of manure. The complaint is about the adverse changes.

mym1990 5y ago
I can't quite put my finger on a concise answer to your first why, but it has something to do with the idea that some people have that seniority and longevity allow people more room to 'call the shots'. This can be seen in the workplace, in HOA communities, government, basically anywhere there is a power dynamic. Not saying that it is the right way to do things, but its hard to deny the presence.
- stadium 5y ago
  Rebellion against intrusion into ones perceived personal space. It immediately reminds me of one of my all time memorable yet confusing quotes. "Every revolutionary ends by becoming either an oppressor or a heretic. In the purely historical universe that they have chosen, rebellion and revolution end in the same dilemma: either police rule or insanity." Albert Camus, The Rebel
handmodel 5y ago
The problem is one of coordination. If everything is determined by local control like this then every single college town will come to the same conclusion. I can empathize with the homeowners there - but obviously bad for society as a whole if every single town acts selfishly.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Everything is not determined by local control like this. Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods is a group of residents that organizing collective action and is bringing a legal challenge against a massively wealthy and powerful organization which they believe is impacting their quality of life. Doesn't seem unreasonable.
  - handmodel 5y ago
    I am saying that even if you think it is extremely reasonable for them to act this way - then you have to admit that in pretty much every college town/renter town in America it is reasonable to act this way. If every single town acts this way it is really not good overall - since even homeowners have family/friends/customers who must now spend a huge amount on rent in large stretches of their life. That is what I mean when I say it is coordination.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      I do think it's reasonable that anybody can access the court system for redress, and it's reasonable that the little guy can collectively organize to make that more feasible to have successful outcomes against large powerful individuals and organizations. How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is really not good overall? I don't see what you mean. But you can bet your bottom dollar those organizations would be the first to launch legal action against the little guy if they thought they were being impacted by their activity, so what's the problem with action in the other direction?

mym1990 5y ago

I can't quite put my finger on a concise answer to your first why, but it has something to do with the idea that some people have that seniority and longevity allow people more room to 'call the shots'. This can be seen in the workplace, in HOA communities, government, basically anywhere there is a power dynamic. Not saying that it is the right way to do things, but its hard to deny the presence.

stadium 5y ago
Rebellion against intrusion into ones perceived personal space. It immediately reminds me of one of my all time memorable yet confusing quotes. "Every revolutionary ends by becoming either an oppressor or a heretic. In the purely historical universe that they have chosen, rebellion and revolution end in the same dilemma: either police rule or insanity." Albert Camus, The Rebel

handmodel 5y ago

The problem is one of coordination. If everything is determined by local control like this then every single college town will come to the same conclusion. I can empathize with the homeowners there - but obviously bad for society as a whole if every single town acts selfishly.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Everything is not determined by local control like this. Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods is a group of residents that organizing collective action and is bringing a legal challenge against a massively wealthy and powerful organization which they believe is impacting their quality of life. Doesn't seem unreasonable.
- handmodel 5y ago
  I am saying that even if you think it is extremely reasonable for them to act this way - then you have to admit that in pretty much every college town/renter town in America it is reasonable to act this way. If every single town acts this way it is really not good overall - since even homeowners have family/friends/customers who must now spend a huge amount on rent in large stretches of their life. That is what I mean when I say it is coordination.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    I do think it's reasonable that anybody can access the court system for redress, and it's reasonable that the little guy can collectively organize to make that more feasible to have successful outcomes against large powerful individuals and organizations. How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is really not good overall? I don't see what you mean. But you can bet your bottom dollar those organizations would be the first to launch legal action against the little guy if they thought they were being impacted by their activity, so what's the problem with action in the other direction?