3 ms·

It's definitely immoral for a city to have laws that make it impossible for working class people to live there (e.g. a suburb with moderately expensive land tha

It's definitely immoral for a city to have laws that make it impossible for working class people to live there (e.g. a suburb with moderately expensive land that bans multifamily housing and has large minimum lot sizes). Whether it's immoral on an individual level to move to such a city is debatable. It's not unreasonable to want to raise your children in a community with low crime and good schools. On the other hand you could argue that choosing to move to a city with immoral laws is itself a way of supporting those laws, and in doing so you become partially responsible for their outcomes.

moduspol 4y ago
> It's definitely immoral for a city to have laws that make it impossible for working class people to live there (e.g. a suburb with moderately expensive land that bans multifamily housing and has large minimum lot sizes). "Working class" is your designation, but I don't think anyone is entitled to live in any specific place (especially when they don't currently live there). Even drawing the line at the city level is arbitrary--should every neighborhood have all social classes of people mandated for living in it? Every apartment building? I just fundamentally disagree that laws reducing population density are inherently immoral simply because they might become desirable places to live that make it more expensive to live there. > On the other hand you could argue that choosing to move to a city with immoral laws is itself a way of supporting those laws, and in doing so you become partially responsible for their outcomes. Who's morally responsible for the laws and policies resulting in high crime, bad schools, rampant homelessness, and high taxes endemic to urban areas (at least in the US)?
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  > Who's morally responsible for the laws and policies resulting in high crime, bad schools, rampant homelessness, and high taxes endemic to urban areas (at least in the US)? You have a lot of options. You could blame the voters for electing the folks who make the laws. You could blame the politicians, since they frequently do things the voters wouldn’t know about or approve of. Since unintended consequences are a thing, maybe nobody is to blame. Some theorize that a society where poor people live all together in one area while the middle class and rich live somewhere else naturally leads to those kinds of problems.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > but I don't think anyone is entitled to live in any specific place (especially when they don't currently live there). I cannot parse this statement. The first claim is people are not entitled to live in any specific place. Then it is clarified that people who currently live in a place are more entitled to live there than people who do not currently live in a place. The former statement would imply that if you force someone off of the land they are occupying, then you can now occupy that land. The latter statement contradicts this sentiment. Which is it?

moduspol 4y ago

> It's definitely immoral for a city to have laws that make it impossible for working class people to live there (e.g. a suburb with moderately expensive land that bans multifamily housing and has large minimum lot sizes). "Working class" is your designation, but I don't think anyone is entitled to live in any specific place (especially when they don't currently live there). Even drawing the line at the city level is arbitrary--should every neighborhood have all social classes of people mandated for living in it? Every apartment building? I just fundamentally disagree that laws reducing population density are inherently immoral simply because they might become desirable places to live that make it more expensive to live there. > On the other hand you could argue that choosing to move to a city with immoral laws is itself a way of supporting those laws, and in doing so you become partially responsible for their outcomes. Who's morally responsible for the laws and policies resulting in high crime, bad schools, rampant homelessness, and high taxes endemic to urban areas (at least in the US)?

amanaplanacanal 4y ago
> Who's morally responsible for the laws and policies resulting in high crime, bad schools, rampant homelessness, and high taxes endemic to urban areas (at least in the US)? You have a lot of options. You could blame the voters for electing the folks who make the laws. You could blame the politicians, since they frequently do things the voters wouldn’t know about or approve of. Since unintended consequences are a thing, maybe nobody is to blame. Some theorize that a society where poor people live all together in one area while the middle class and rich live somewhere else naturally leads to those kinds of problems.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> but I don't think anyone is entitled to live in any specific place (especially when they don't currently live there). I cannot parse this statement. The first claim is people are not entitled to live in any specific place. Then it is clarified that people who currently live in a place are more entitled to live there than people who do not currently live in a place. The former statement would imply that if you force someone off of the land they are occupying, then you can now occupy that land. The latter statement contradicts this sentiment. Which is it?