3 ms·
> In fact this whole situation is weirdly democratic but un-democratic. Un-democratic in the sense that it casts out folks that don't live there, but democratic
by seneca 5y ago
> In fact this whole situation is weirdly democratic but un-democratic. Un-democratic in the sense that it casts out folks that don't live there, but democratic in the sense that the voices of those who own homes are clearly heard.
This isn't undemocratic at all.
I know people hate this generally, but just to make a point: Democracy literally means "rule by the demos". The demos is (definitions from wiktionary because it was the first search result): "ordinary citizens, common people from a district, in a city-state” or "(political science) The common populace of a state or district, the people". So, the citizens or the populace. Meaning the people who live there.
That is to say, the will of "folks that don't live there" has nothing to do with Democracy. The citizens of an area voting for their self interest is completely democratic. It just doesn't end up with the results some people want.
- rfrey 5y agoYes, but the conflict comes from what "here" means. If you draw the boundary around a neighbourhood, sure - it's democratic. But it's just as rational to consider L.A. itself and suddenly it's undemocratic because decisions aren't being made by the "demos" but by a small subset of them - with implications for the whole city. Similarly one could expand the boundary to the entire state. On the other extreme the residents of a single block could decide it's in their interest to build a skyscraper on their one block. Democracy, right? The residents of an area (that block) are doing what's in their own interest.
- chongli 5y agoYou have to draw the boundary somewhere. Once you do, the people inside that boundary will vote for their self-interests and the people outside the boundary will be at a disadvantage. This happens at the level of cities with zoning laws but it also happens at the level of countries with immigration laws.