4 ms·

So the government should serve the interests of those that aren’t residents to the detriment of those that do?

slymon99 3y ago
Yes.
themagician 3y ago
Yes, if you want to address the issue. Whether you should is another question. That is what the higher levels of government do. When the majority of citizens need something, you essentially use threat of violence to take it by force. You will never fix the "nimby problem" any other way.
- falcolas 3y ago
  > When the majority of citizens need something, you essentially use threat of violence to take it by force. Basically a rehash of colonialism (or something that rhymes with it). We want a resource that the existing people on the land (NIMBYs, this time) have, so we'll take it using force. It certainly rhymes with how we’ve done things in the past. And there's even a nifty phrase for it - the tyranny of the majority. And I've gotta ask... why do we "need" these specific parcels of land? Especially in a time where so much work can be done from anywhere in the US. There's plenty of land, why are we so eager to use force to take these highly specific parcels?
- dffdsa432 3y ago
  Communist governments used the threat of violence to take by farmland by force. How did that turn out?
  - themagician 3y ago
    Worked out well in areas like Hawaii and many of the US territories we took by force.
Retric 3y ago
Local governments have finite power given to them by state and federal government. So, the argument is more that state and federal government should actually exercise their authority to fix the underlying problem. Abstractly hyper local optimization is suboptimal.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y ago
  Strong statement. Got any proof of that? All governments get their power from the people who they serve. As soon as they do not serve the interests of the people the represent they should be dissolved. Local government gets its power from the local people and no one else.
  - Retric 3y ago
    > Got any proof of that? Most obviously their form and powers vary based on the state. Several hundred years of court cases make there limits clear. Local governments regularly get overridden on all kinds of things. Local governments are also completely dependent on outside help for all kinds of things. It’s common for them to even lack local police forces let alone a court system. Outliers like major cities seem extremely powerful, but for the most part they have similar powers to HOA’s. PS: As to getting authority from the governed… Some let people outside the area vote, and a few that give corporations a say.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > Local governments have finite power given to them by state and federal government. I know it's out of fashion, but the Tenth Amendment appears to say otherwise.
  - none_to_remain 3y ago
    The Tenth Amendment, for whatever it's worth, talks about federal and state governments. Local governments: city, town, village, county, etc., are creatures of their state and wholely subordinate.
  - 3y ago

Yes.

Yes, if you want to address the issue. Whether you should is another question. That is what the higher levels of government do. When the majority of citizens need something, you essentially use threat of violence to take it by force. You will never fix the "nimby problem" any other way.

falcolas 3y ago
> When the majority of citizens need something, you essentially use threat of violence to take it by force. Basically a rehash of colonialism (or something that rhymes with it). We want a resource that the existing people on the land (NIMBYs, this time) have, so we'll take it using force. It certainly rhymes with how we’ve done things in the past. And there's even a nifty phrase for it - the tyranny of the majority. And I've gotta ask... why do we "need" these specific parcels of land? Especially in a time where so much work can be done from anywhere in the US. There's plenty of land, why are we so eager to use force to take these highly specific parcels?
dffdsa432 3y ago
Communist governments used the threat of violence to take by farmland by force. How did that turn out?
- themagician 3y ago
  Worked out well in areas like Hawaii and many of the US territories we took by force.

Retric 3y ago

Local governments have finite power given to them by state and federal government. So, the argument is more that state and federal government should actually exercise their authority to fix the underlying problem. Abstractly hyper local optimization is suboptimal.

whatwhaaaaat 3y ago
Strong statement. Got any proof of that? All governments get their power from the people who they serve. As soon as they do not serve the interests of the people the represent they should be dissolved. Local government gets its power from the local people and no one else.
- Retric 3y ago
  > Got any proof of that? Most obviously their form and powers vary based on the state. Several hundred years of court cases make there limits clear. Local governments regularly get overridden on all kinds of things. Local governments are also completely dependent on outside help for all kinds of things. It’s common for them to even lack local police forces let alone a court system. Outliers like major cities seem extremely powerful, but for the most part they have similar powers to HOA’s. PS: As to getting authority from the governed… Some let people outside the area vote, and a few that give corporations a say.
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> Local governments have finite power given to them by state and federal government. I know it's out of fashion, but the Tenth Amendment appears to say otherwise.
- none_to_remain 3y ago
  The Tenth Amendment, for whatever it's worth, talks about federal and state governments. Local governments: city, town, village, county, etc., are creatures of their state and wholely subordinate.
- 3y ago