5 ms·
So the disaster can spread nationally rather than being contained locally? The true solution is simple, reverse the infringement on property rights that is cau
by johngladtj 2y ago
So the disaster can spread nationally rather than being contained locally?
The true solution is simple, reverse the infringement on property rights that is causing the issue in the first place.
The only one who should have any say about what gets built in a plot of land should be the owner.
- bradleyjg 2y agoPerfect as the enemy of the good and all that.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- seabass-labrax 2y agoYou seem to have rose-tinted spectacles for an earlier time, in which there is no 'infringement of property rights'. Yet, no such time really existed since the Norman Conquest at the latest. Contemporary to when the first building regulations were invented in the middle ages, we had everything from socage to slavery: so yes, property rights were rather strong if you were lucky to be one of the 0.1% with some aristocratic background. I would posit that the real tragedy is the inclosure Acts, which in a couple of decades undid centuries of social progress away from feudalism towards community-focused common land use, which was not only an efficient system but also a fair one.
- hackerlight 2y ago> So the disaster can spread nationally rather than being contained locally? The local vs global incentives differ, which is why removing local power will help. At the global level, voters care (a bit) about things like social unrest, homelessness, their kids being priced out of housing. And the 'burden' of increasing housing is shared roughly equally across everyone. At the local level, the incentives work very differently. If the local community restricts housing, they get all the benefits and push the costs (homelessness, housing crisis, etc) onto broader society.