3 ms·

> public housing Not without people. You already can't get a house built now unless you're willing to wait years. But what good is a house years in the future

by 9rx 1y ago

> public housing Not without people. You already can't get a house built now unless you're willing to wait years. But what good is a house years in the future if you need shelter now? That's not to say stop building, but it remains that more people are needed to have any hope of catching up to what is actually needed. A great way to attract more people is to pay more, of course, but guess what that does? It increases the cost of housing even more! The only way out of this is to see people start voluntarily (possibly with a token payment, but certainly not the market rate) offering their services to build houses. > rent caps The formal definition of storage is: A situation where an external mechanism, such as government intervention, prevents price from rising. Do you think introducing a housing shortage is the best idea here? In any other world a shortage is considered a crisis in its own right. > subisiding new and denser construction You can open your wallet instead of volunteering, I suppose, as that's ultimately the same thing at the end of the day. But you don't need the system to open your wallet for you. Just do it! > It's a little odd that you comparing liberals to a religious group that reject basically any technology from the industrial revolution and onward. That's a bit of a strange characterization. They reject any technology that they fear will impact the family unit (which is why you see strange things in certain churches like brand new tractors with metal wheels; with the thinking being that rubber tires would make it easy to leave the family behind), but healthcare is definitely not that. Health is essential to maintaining the family unit! > but once you get cancer or need an x-ray or a blood transfusion or bone-marrow transplant or birth complications? The way to fix all this is universal healthcare, period. Yes, exactly. Insurance isn't limited to healthcare, but in the case of healthcare that's exactly what the Amish in the USA have: Universal healthcare (where universal is with respect to those within their community). Were you under the impression that they reject healthcare or something? They don't, actually. Their system is self-administered, operated by the people of the Amish community. As before, it is recognized you need to have a community to make that work, but they prove you don't need the nebulous system to provide it. Just do it! If a community of liberals want this, there is nothing to stop it but themselves. > then let's fund mental health programmes like crazy? By funding, you mean pay people to do work? Why not just step up do the work yourself? Or, failing that, pony up and pay someone else to do the work? You don't need the system here, just do it! Look, I fully understand the appeal of hoping someone else will do it. I don't want to do any of these things either. But if I'm not going to do, why would anyone else? Why would I expect it of someone else? That is strangely irrational. > do you consider other countries at all? Certainly my own. Last time I checked I live in a country that is not the one in subject. But the topic has been about one particular country since the onset, so one cannot detour too far into what goes on in other countries without straying beyond what the discussion is about. For the sake of good faith participation, it is best to stay on-topic as much as possible. > conservatives don't do this, they just accept these issues as facts of life and don't spend time worrying about them at all. Right, the idea given at the onset was that conservatives recognize that if they're too lazy to do something, everyone else will be too. In contrast, liberals seem to think that everyone but themselves sit around bored all day just waiting for instructions, then act surprised when that isn't the case. I asked earlier if you felt that was an unfair characterization, but I didn't pick up on your answer (if you gave it).

Defletter 1y ago
Honestly, reading through all that, it sounds like you yourself are just as defeatist as liberals, if not more so: every possible systemic solution which has been shown to work[1], is to you like wishing on a Monkey's Paw. And yes, there's some truth to that: there's a saying that there are no solutions, only trade offs. But good grief, this level of defeatism is insane... why even have a government if it can't do anything for the public good? So again, I must ask, am I arguing with an anarchist? [1] "Hav[ing] been shown to work" meaning measurably solving the issue, not necessarily utter eradication of the issue. We needn't let the perfect get in the way of the good.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > yourself are just as defeatist as liberals I suppose it to the eye of the beholder, but I, at least, consider myself a liberal, so that sounds reasonable. Of course a liberal is going to be as defeatist as a liberal. > why even have a government if it can't do anything for the public good? Isn't it obvious? The role of government is to clean up the outliers who act out against the wishes of the people, not to "do good". You know, like, say, you start volunteering to build houses to help solve the housing crisis as anyone who cares naturally would, but then a thief comes along and steals all your materials. The government's job would be to deal with that thief and to do what it can to ensure that no thievery happens again. It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses, even though the need is apparent and doing so would be to the greater good.
  - Defletter 1y ago
    > The role of government is to clean up the outliers who act out against the wishes of the people, not to "do good" The democratic state exists to represent, protect, and promote the welfare of the people. The idea that governments exist to "clean up the outliers" (side-stepping the worrying phrasing of that) is a 'small-c' conservative mindset, not a liberal one. No, the democratic government exists to do what the people elect it to do. The reason why ostensibly democratic governments so often disregard or even act against the wishes of their constituents is because that democracy is not really as democratic as it would like us to believe (eg: gerrymandering). Also corruption, which is arguably included in the previous point but best to make it explicit anyway. > you start volunteering to build houses [...] as anyone who cares naturally would I love the naive frivolity of the idea that people can just volunteer to build houses as if there's no training, zoning, insurance, regulations, etc, involved. Sure, I could make the teas and coffees, but like, you seem to think this is something people can do to fix the housing crisis by themselves. So how will people do the plumbing, wiring, structural analysis? Ensure the foundations are correctly laid? That walls are not out of plumb? You just hope that this effort that people make in their spare time will have all the planning permission and trained professionals enough to get this done? Are you for real? > It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses Okay, literally who? Who is being forced to build houses? Even in countries with public housing policies, who is being forced to build houses? The only thing I can think of that's remotely close to this is when development contracts include requirements for nearby affordable housing developments. I have no idea what you're talking about and I honestly think this argument is a complete strawman. --- You are obviously an authority on yourself, but are you really a liberal? You certainly not making liberal arguments, and not in a "hurr durr, that's because I actually want to get things done!" way, but in a wholesale rejection of systemic solutions to societal problems, the dismissal of the idea that the state has any responsibility to promote the welfare of the people, and the notion that public programmes that would promote the welfare of the people would force people to labour against their will? These are conservative talking points through and through, and I think you should reflect on that. But again, we are just bickering in a side discussion: the real discussion is about why liberals are less happy compared to conservatives. I've made my claim, you've seemingly agreed with that claim. We needn't continue this gratuitous back and forth about whether the state can and should attempt to benefit the people outside of "clean up the outliers".

by 9rx 1y ago

Defletter 1y ago

Honestly, reading through all that, it sounds like you yourself are just as defeatist as liberals, if not more so: every possible systemic solution which has been shown to work[1], is to you like wishing on a Monkey's Paw. And yes, there's some truth to that: there's a saying that there are no solutions, only trade offs. But good grief, this level of defeatism is insane... why even have a government if it can't do anything for the public good? So again, I must ask, am I arguing with an anarchist? [1] "Hav[ing] been shown to work" meaning measurably solving the issue, not necessarily utter eradication of the issue. We needn't let the perfect get in the way of the good.

9rx 1y ago
> yourself are just as defeatist as liberals I suppose it to the eye of the beholder, but I, at least, consider myself a liberal, so that sounds reasonable. Of course a liberal is going to be as defeatist as a liberal. > why even have a government if it can't do anything for the public good? Isn't it obvious? The role of government is to clean up the outliers who act out against the wishes of the people, not to "do good". You know, like, say, you start volunteering to build houses to help solve the housing crisis as anyone who cares naturally would, but then a thief comes along and steals all your materials. The government's job would be to deal with that thief and to do what it can to ensure that no thievery happens again. It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses, even though the need is apparent and doing so would be to the greater good.
- Defletter 1y ago
  > The role of government is to clean up the outliers who act out against the wishes of the people, not to "do good" The democratic state exists to represent, protect, and promote the welfare of the people. The idea that governments exist to "clean up the outliers" (side-stepping the worrying phrasing of that) is a 'small-c' conservative mindset, not a liberal one. No, the democratic government exists to do what the people elect it to do. The reason why ostensibly democratic governments so often disregard or even act against the wishes of their constituents is because that democracy is not really as democratic as it would like us to believe (eg: gerrymandering). Also corruption, which is arguably included in the previous point but best to make it explicit anyway. > you start volunteering to build houses [...] as anyone who cares naturally would I love the naive frivolity of the idea that people can just volunteer to build houses as if there's no training, zoning, insurance, regulations, etc, involved. Sure, I could make the teas and coffees, but like, you seem to think this is something people can do to fix the housing crisis by themselves. So how will people do the plumbing, wiring, structural analysis? Ensure the foundations are correctly laid? That walls are not out of plumb? You just hope that this effort that people make in their spare time will have all the planning permission and trained professionals enough to get this done? Are you for real? > It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses Okay, literally who? Who is being forced to build houses? Even in countries with public housing policies, who is being forced to build houses? The only thing I can think of that's remotely close to this is when development contracts include requirements for nearby affordable housing developments. I have no idea what you're talking about and I honestly think this argument is a complete strawman. --- You are obviously an authority on yourself, but are you really a liberal? You certainly not making liberal arguments, and not in a "hurr durr, that's because I actually want to get things done!" way, but in a wholesale rejection of systemic solutions to societal problems, the dismissal of the idea that the state has any responsibility to promote the welfare of the people, and the notion that public programmes that would promote the welfare of the people would force people to labour against their will? These are conservative talking points through and through, and I think you should reflect on that. But again, we are just bickering in a side discussion: the real discussion is about why liberals are less happy compared to conservatives. I've made my claim, you've seemingly agreed with that claim. We needn't continue this gratuitous back and forth about whether the state can and should attempt to benefit the people outside of "clean up the outliers".