6 ms·

People have had large families without much space for centuries. It clearly isn't a necessity.

crusso 14y ago
Having a large family isn't a necessity either, I guess. Who gets to decide such things in a free society?
briandear 14y ago
> It clearly isn't a necessity Right. That's what freedom means. The freedom to buy whatever house you want. I don't want people deciding what my "necessities" are. That's the problem, too many people think they know what's best for everyone else. The Soviets apparently knew what was "best" for their people and their crappy products, terrible farming yields and dismal failing economic system was the result, not to mention widespread poverty (as well as famine in 1930-1932.) A house in general isn't a necessity. A lean-to in the woods could work. So could a tent. People can tell me what they heck I'm allowed to buy, do or how I should live as soon as they give me the right to start evaluating everything they're doing. If people want to build bigger homes, that's their right -- they are paying for them. Just like if I want to drive 100,000 miles per year in a Hummer -- that's my right. Bigger houses are valued higher so the residents pay more taxes which pays for more "stuff" that I often feel is clearly not a "necessity." If I drive 100,000 miles per year, I'm paying gasoline taxes (and tolls) which ostensibly fund roads and bridges as well as other infrastructure. I personally prefer a higher quality house and am willing to pay more per square foot to get it. If that means I have a smaller house, that's fine with me, but if people value size over quality, that's their right as well. In a free market, no one is forced to buy anything (except for health insurance, of course,) but those large suburban homes.. if that's what people want, who cares? I don't tell people what women or men they should make babies with, so why should people be able to tell us what homes to buy? Although I would argue that bad human breeding choices causes more societal damage than a house with 500 extra square feet, but once again, it's about freedom. Many people have forgotten what freedom means. It embarrassing to call myself an American when a good portion of Americans feel like it's their duty to tell everyone else how they should live their life to fit with some normative idea held by this group or that. I guarantee that every single one of us has something in our lifestyle that could be considered "bad" by someone. Who gets to decide what's bad? As long as your life choices don't deprive others of life, liberty or property, then do whatever the fuck you want. Don't try to make the lame argument that bigger houses consume more resources and it causes you die sooner. Those people pay for the resources consumed and people have jobs because of those resources consumed. And, as those resources become more scarce, the prices will rise, thus leading to a reduction of consumption of those resources. The economy is generally a self-regulating system (at least when we stop trying to manipulate it for political ends.) If someone wants to live in a Manhattan closet and someone else wants to live in a Queens "McMansion," what right is it of ours to say otherwise? For those complaining about "too big" then ask yourself, do you really "need" a 27 inch monitor? An 11 inch MacBook Air is good enough for 37signals, why should you need anything bigger? It isn't a necessity right? A computer isn't really a necessity when you get down to it. Society hummed along just fine before we had computers in every (smaller) home. /end rant
- rayiner 14y ago
  It's not just an issue of freedom. It's an issue of the public policies that generate particular preferences. Our public policy creates tremendous incentives that push people to those giant houses in the suburbs. E.g. here in Illinois, the state is massively funding highway construction, while giving little to no money to maintain the Chicago commuter rail network. Aging trains and overcrowding on the rail that results from these policies dramatically affects peoples "choices."

Having a large family isn't a necessity either, I guess. Who gets to decide such things in a free society?

> It clearly isn't a necessity Right. That's what freedom means. The freedom to buy whatever house you want. I don't want people deciding what my "necessities" are. That's the problem, too many people think they know what's best for everyone else. The Soviets apparently knew what was "best" for their people and their crappy products, terrible farming yields and dismal failing economic system was the result, not to mention widespread poverty (as well as famine in 1930-1932.) A house in general isn't a necessity. A lean-to in the woods could work. So could a tent. People can tell me what they heck I'm allowed to buy, do or how I should live as soon as they give me the right to start evaluating everything they're doing. If people want to build bigger homes, that's their right -- they are paying for them. Just like if I want to drive 100,000 miles per year in a Hummer -- that's my right. Bigger houses are valued higher so the residents pay more taxes which pays for more "stuff" that I often feel is clearly not a "necessity." If I drive 100,000 miles per year, I'm paying gasoline taxes (and tolls) which ostensibly fund roads and bridges as well as other infrastructure. I personally prefer a higher quality house and am willing to pay more per square foot to get it. If that means I have a smaller house, that's fine with me, but if people value size over quality, that's their right as well. In a free market, no one is forced to buy anything (except for health insurance, of course,) but those large suburban homes.. if that's what people want, who cares? I don't tell people what women or men they should make babies with, so why should people be able to tell us what homes to buy? Although I would argue that bad human breeding choices causes more societal damage than a house with 500 extra square feet, but once again, it's about freedom. Many people have forgotten what freedom means. It embarrassing to call myself an American when a good portion of Americans feel like it's their duty to tell everyone else how they should live their life to fit with some normative idea held by this group or that. I guarantee that every single one of us has something in our lifestyle that could be considered "bad" by someone. Who gets to decide what's bad? As long as your life choices don't deprive others of life, liberty or property, then do whatever the fuck you want. Don't try to make the lame argument that bigger houses consume more resources and it causes you die sooner. Those people pay for the resources consumed and people have jobs because of those resources consumed. And, as those resources become more scarce, the prices will rise, thus leading to a reduction of consumption of those resources. The economy is generally a self-regulating system (at least when we stop trying to manipulate it for political ends.) If someone wants to live in a Manhattan closet and someone else wants to live in a Queens "McMansion," what right is it of ours to say otherwise? For those complaining about "too big" then ask yourself, do you really "need" a 27 inch monitor? An 11 inch MacBook Air is good enough for 37signals, why should you need anything bigger? It isn't a necessity right? A computer isn't really a necessity when you get down to it. Society hummed along just fine before we had computers in every (smaller) home. /end rant

rayiner 14y ago
It's not just an issue of freedom. It's an issue of the public policies that generate particular preferences. Our public policy creates tremendous incentives that push people to those giant houses in the suburbs. E.g. here in Illinois, the state is massively funding highway construction, while giving little to no money to maintain the Chicago commuter rail network. Aging trains and overcrowding on the rail that results from these policies dramatically affects peoples "choices."