3 ms·

You throw around the word socialism as an epithet but the status quo you are defending is one of the least free markets in the world. Those escalating values ar

• kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  I'm just arguing from the principle that people should be allowed to desire certain living conditions and work towards obtaining them. Not saying the current state of affairs is ideal. Nevertheless it seems OK to me if, say, a city designates some area for building and says "this is for a part of town with lots of parks and only single family homes" or whatever. Then it would be unfair to later come around and say oopsi, now you'll have to accept "affordable" homes in your neighborhood. Presumably the city sells the land to the builders, and it comes with a certain promise.
  • bradleyjg 5y ago
    That sounds an awful lot like central planning to me. Aren’t you worried about breeding hopelessness?
    • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      Well if the land belongs to the city, they can do with it as they please, including central planning? I'm not saying it is ideal, but I think that is usually how it is done? And if you want to sell land to people to build houses for their family, you better provide them with some incentives, like promising to build schools, sanitation and so on. It also is not as hopeless as socialism because people are not forced to take the offer. they can negotiate with the city, too. They can even start their own cities.