3 ms·
Did you read the comment I'm replying to? "Instead of spending money on the people. We are spending it on stupid car centric infrastructure. Forget mental heal
by typewithrhythm 3y ago
Did you read the comment I'm replying to?
"Instead of spending money on the people. We are spending it on stupid car centric infrastructure. Forget mental health, social support, universal basic income..."
This is a classic socialist point, one I feel the need to call out.
Yes, there is a decision on what to encourage, and I think it's important to acknowledge that density inherently comes with more restrictions.
- kiba 3y agoSingle family zoning is inherently restrictive since you're forced to live a certain expensive lifestyle. Not being able to ride bikes safely is inherently restrictive. Being forced to spend money on car instead of being able to afford <insert-hobby-here> is a form of restriction. Density can support things like live theaters. It's hard to support theater in the countryside. How about restaurants? Can't really have the plethora of options without a large population. How do you afford state of the art hospitals? You need a large enough population density to make supporting these hospitals viable. If you say it's socialist or capitalist or <ideology> you're really only hamstringing yourself in discussion about urbanism, making the entire discussion nonsensical.
- crooked-v 3y agoThe specific examples given there may be "socialist", but they could just as well be 'national defense and border control' and the basic idea would be exactly the same.
- jen20 3y agoOf course there has never been a self-styled socialist country with strong border control. Definitely can’t think of one… nope. Oh, wait [1]. (1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany