Kyrsten Sinema finally comes out of the closet just in time to weaken the historical Democratic majority in the Senate

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
If you think your NIMBY agenda can achieve majority support then do that. The problem is you know it can’t.

What you should ask yourself is why the average person doesn’t want what you want. I imagine you will say this is because they are insane and should be forced to believe what you do but again - that’s why you’re one of the biggest authoritarians here.
Nobody can ever be forced to believe what I believe. I see what I see only because I lost my belief in everything that was of value to me. I saw what is beyond belief. I saw because the pain of loss killed me. You have to be willing to give up, to let go and die. Such willingness is never imposed by force. Laws, on the other hand are tools of authoritarianism. Laws are always about whose ox gets gored.

Once a person who wanted a garden could have a garden. Now there are so many without a house, much less a garden, they are quite happy to take away the house and the garden of those who got one long ago with such things were possible. Lets make laws where there will be houses where all those gardens used to be. Let us rob from Peter to pay Paul.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,056
8,335
136
No, it isn't. States and communities have no obligation whatsoever to pander to those who might want to live there.
So states should strangle the growth of their economies by continuing this low-vacancy game of musical chairs? Because people are going to keep moving to areas of high economic opportunity, unless you plan on enacting intra-country emigration controls.

Additionally, in places with severe housing shortages, people are also living there or living on the precipice of being on the street, and they desperately need housing built.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Nobody can ever be forced to believe what I believe. I see what I see only because I lost my belief in everything that was of value to me. I saw what is beyond belief. I saw because the pain of loss killed me. You have to be willing to give up, to let go and die. Such willingness is never imposed by force. Laws, on the other hand are tools of authoritarianism. Laws are always about whose ox gets gored.

Once a person who wanted a garden could have a garden. Now there are so many without a house, much less a garden, they are quite happy to take away the house and the garden of those who got one long ago with such things were possible. Lets make laws where there will be houses where all those gardens used to be. Let us rob from Peter to pay Paul.

If "laws are tools of authoritatianism" then I assume you want to get rid of all the laws that prevent housing development, and just say anything goes for new home construction? That would be the natural conclusion to draw from what you just wrote.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,211
28,916
136
So states should strangle the growth of their economies by continuing this low-vacancy game of musical chairs?
No, a state should put the interests of the people who actually live in that state ahead of imaginary people who might choose to live there. Putting the interests of imaginary people ahead of the citizens of the state is pandering to greedy speculators and developers at the expense of the people who live there.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: hal2kilo

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Where exactly? No one ever wants new housing in their communities. And since your stance is that a democratically elected state government should not be able to override a democratically elected local government - in spite of the state government's supremacy being in every's state Constitution - I don't see any solution you have proposed.
I have proposed that because the system is the problem and that fixes within the rules of the system are the system itself, the only solution is to change the system. But the system is built and maintained by the winners within the system so the system can't be changed without revolution. There are two kinds of revolution, at least. One is by force, one is by conscious evolution. I represent the second kind. I speak words I hope will help others to agree.

My thinking runs along the lines of freedom from the fear of economic poverty and homelessness. That would include creating more homes that people who have economic power would want themselves to live in. That means new homes should appeal to our inner nature, not our economic fear of extinction. We need to create a society that offers the possibility of creative satisfactory liven without very high levels of density. I believe that our opportunity to connect and experience natural environments in our lives pretty much at will, meaning conveniently and easily, should be the priority.

In this sense, we need science and university level research to plan and create the environment for the future. The goal of human live should be to make life worth living. It is not easy to know what it truly is we long for. That requires spiritual wisdom or any other name it happens to go by.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
If "laws are tools of authoritatianism" then I assume you want to get rid of all the laws that prevent housing development, and just say anything goes for new home construction? That would be the natural conclusion to draw from what you just wrote.
No, I am saying that the desire to preserve zoning laws arose out of a desire of other to have what can no longer be easily achieved, that all of those people who by chance fell into a good thing by accident of where they happened to buy to live and now want to protect it from destruction by encroachment of new desire to have what they by accident, now need to demand the institution and preservation of laws that protect them. The idea is to shame and turn such people into objects of evil so the need driven people can use moral outrage to drive access their land.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,056
8,335
136
No, a state should put the interests of the people who actually live in that state ahead of imaginary people who might choose to live there. Putting the interests of imaginary people ahead of the citizens of the state is pandering to greedy speculators and developers at the expense of the people who live there.
Standing up for incumbent homeowners who have home values going to the moon while renting neighbors sit on the edge of homelessness and others are already homeless because of low housing supply making renting expensive doesn't sound like "putting the interests of their citizens first."

Why is a greedy nimby homeowner better than a developer? At least a developer is building more housing that people can live in.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,211
28,916
136
Standing up for incumbent homeowners who have home values going to the moon while renting neighbors sit on the edge of homelessness and others are already homeless because of low housing supply making renting expensive doesn't sound like "putting the interests of their citizens first."

Why is a greedy nimby homeowner better than a developer? At least a developer is building more housing that people can live in.
Why is greed the only value you can imagine for a nimby homeowner?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
No, a state should put the interests of the people who actually live in that state ahead of imaginary people who might choose to live there. Putting the interests of imaginary people ahead of the citizens of the state is pandering to greedy speculators and developers at the expense of the people who live there.
What if we were to tax second homes at the rent they collect. That should cause housing prices to fall. Then non profits could buy houses for people and send the rent to the state. The state could use the rent money to fund university based best science urban design of whole new communities to be built including new housing.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,425
136
Why do homeowners get to decide who can and cannot live in their community? Why do they get to have veto power over property they don't own?

You mean why do residents get to vote on things that affect their community? Is that not how democracies work?
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,056
8,335
136
You mean why do residents get to vote on things that affect their community? Is that not how democracies work?
And some states are finding that communities are trying to wall themselves off to the detriment of the rest of the state. And as a larger community, the states are making the choice that those communities have squandered their ability to self-govern. Why should we allow communities to become walled gardens that perpetuate wealth inequality and enable a humanitarian crisis?
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,082
21,203
136
No, a state should put the interests of the people who actually live in that state ahead of imaginary people who might choose to live there. Putting the interests of imaginary people ahead of the citizens of the state is pandering to greedy speculators and developers at the expense of the people who live there.
Imaginary people? That's a funny way to talk about real people because people are not building where only imaginary people will go. Sure some investors buy expensive properties to sit cash in, but part of the reason they are so expensive is because it's hard to build housing in the first place, because of nimbyism.

Do you not think cities and states might want to grow? Do you think this can help build the economy? Do you know how economies work?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,082
21,203
136
The voters of these communities, through their elected representatives, have determined how their communities should be run. You wish to overturn the will of the people who live in these communities and impose your will and values on them.
I don't think he's trying to impose any values on anybody. Allowing more housing so people can live in places people actually want to live is not imposing anything, in fact it's the opposite of imposing super strict zoning laws.

You do know that country's grow and get bigger and populations need somewhere to live, by you wanting to strictly impose your definition of what land is worthy of being used for is what's authoritarian.

Trust me I don't think anybody wants to build a skyscraper anywhere near your plot of land. And I'm happy you have that land and I'm not telling you to not enjoy your life there, but you want to impose your values everywhere else which is fucked.

The funny thing is is listening to moonbeam the authoritarian talk about he wants to be the kingmaker of how people live. Do you know how many people I know, and clients, that want to live in a densely populated area in a skyscraper with views and other amenities? Near to lots of cool shit that just happens to appeal to them? Shitloads.

And a lot of people that move from cities to the burbs only do so because they're priced out. I know a lot of people in the suburbs that would have preferred to raise kids much nearer to a dense urban area if they could afford it.

A lot of people find the suburbs soul sucking and soulless and a sacrifice they make to get more space. And I'm not saying get rid of suburbs because they will be there, there will always be an option for people to live further out from a city. I'm not trying to take away the option for people to live further away from cities . Feel free to do so .There is way more than enough land for this to happen in this country.

The problem is they want to have it as near to a city as possible by imposing their strict beliefs on what land should be used for on everybody else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
I don't think he's trying to impose any values on anybody. Allowing more housing so people can live in places people actually want to live is not imposing anything, in fact it's the opposite of imposing super strict zoning laws.

You do know that country's grow and get bigger and populations need somewhere to live, by you wanting to strictly impose your definition of what land is worthy of being used for is what's authoritarian.

Trust me I don't think anybody wants to build a skyscraper anywhere near your plot of land. And I'm happy you have that land and I'm not telling you to not enjoy your life there, but you want to impose your values everywhere else which is fucked.

The funny thing is is listening to moonbeam the authoritarian talk about he wants to be the kingmaker of how people live. Do you know how many people I know, and clients, that want to live in a densely populated area in a skyscraper with views and other amenities? Near to lots of cool shit that just happens to appeal to them? Shitloads.

And a lot of people that move from cities to the burbs only do so because they're priced out. I know a lot of people in the suburbs that would have preferred to raise kids much nearer to a dense urban area if they could afford it.

A lot of people find the suburbs soul sucking and soulless and a sacrifice they make to get more space. And I'm not saying get rid of suburbs because they will be there, there will always be an option for people to live further out from a city. I'm not trying to take away the option for people to live further away from cities . Feel free to do so .There is way more than enough land for this to happen in this country.

The problem is they want to have it as near to a city as possible by imposing their strict beliefs on what land should be used for on everybody else.
You mean those horrible laws that were there when they moved in?
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,082
21,203
136
You mean those horrible laws that were there when they moved in?
Do you think all laws should remain unchanged for eternal time? Can you think of any laws that were worthy of being changed in the last 100 years perhaps?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
You mean why do residents get to vote on things that affect their community? Is that not how democracies work?
Kind of like somebody in a high rise refusing to share his or her apt with some homeless individual. There wouldn't be any homeless if people just shared their apts. with random individuals. But they whose ox would get gored. The self interest is always apparent in someone else. Think of it? Homelessness could be solved tomorrow if laws were passed that the homeless could move into any high density housing free with less than ten individuals already living there. I am sure that the burbs would happily support such a law. Not me, however, because it's way way too authoritarian for me. People who now have apartments, I am sure, would think that to change the laws after they moved in to be extremely unfair and I bet they would demand no such law got passed.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Do you think all laws should remain unchanged for eternal time? Can you think of any laws that were worthy of being changed in the last 100 years perhaps?
Heavens no. I favor a new law that would put you away for life for past posts you have made where your aim is to hurt my feelings. And at a minimum it should also force you to pay my Kleenex bill.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,056
8,335
136
Kind of like somebody in a high rise refusing to share his or her apt with some homeless individual. There wouldn't be any homeless if people just shared their apts. with random individuals. But they whose ox would get gored. The self interest is always apparent in someone else. Think of it? Homelessness could be solved tomorrow if laws were passed that the homeless could move into any high density housing free with less than ten individuals already living there. I am sure that the burbs would happily support such a law. Not me, however, because it's way way too authoritarian for me. People who now have apartments, I am sure, would think that to change the laws after they moved in to be extremely unfair and I bet they would demand no such law got passed.
I like how you throw people in apartments under the bus. Why don't you open up those spacious SFHs to your scheme?
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,211
28,916
136
And some states are finding that communities are trying to wall themselves off to the detriment of the rest of the state. And as a larger community, the states are making the choice that those communities have squandered their ability to self-govern. Why should we allow communities to become walled gardens that perpetuate wealth inequality and enable a humanitarian crisis?
When the voters of a community choose to tell greedy speculators and developers to go pound sand, the developers go bribe legislators in other districts to vote against the interests of the community that rejected their sweet nothings. This isn't democracy in action; it is corruption.

Your claim that nimbyism is the cause of a humanitarian crisis, offered without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. The cause of the homelessness crisis is the hyper-concentration of income.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,082
21,203
136
When the voters of a community choose to tell greedy speculators and developers to go pound sand, the developers go bribe legislators in other districts to vote against the interests of the community that rejected their sweet nothings. This isn't democracy in action; it is corruption.

Your claim that nimbyism is the cause of a humanitarian crisis, offered without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. The cause of the homelessness crisis is the hyper-concentration of income.
So the cost of housing has nothing to do with anything. In fact the affordability of anything has nothing to do with any neediness in the country. Whether that's medical or owning a car or a million other things that are necessary to live.

That's a fascinating leap of logic. A leap off of a cliff named moonbeam.
 
Last edited:

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,082
21,203
136
Heavens no. I favor a new law that would put you away for life for past posts you have made where your aim is to hurt my feelings. And at a minimum it should also force you to pay my Kleenex bill.
It's a really simple point but just the fact that something was a law it doesn't mean it's a good law. Doesn't mean it's a bad law but it's certainly doesn't mean it should be permanent forever. I mean that is just basic logic 101. Which you understand except you are so driven to force people to live the way you want them to live that you don't care.


It's also very ironic that your more rural way of life is subsidized by the more dense areas that you hate so much.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
If "laws are tools of authoritatianism" then I assume you want to get rid of all the laws that prevent housing development, and just say anything goes for new home construction? That would be the natural conclusion to draw from what you just wrote.
Also, as I have mentioned, I see things from a third perspective, or so I would like to believe. Good and evil are reconciled from a perspective in which duality has collapsed. On the level of thought which discriminates and thus divides, there is authority and authority, good authority and bad authority. When the delusion that what one's particular preference is what determines which is which has collapsed and a state of open inquire replaced certainty, one discovers that as the only person in a room that does not actually know anything, the opinions of those who imagine they do become quite easily seen and seen to be the product of delusional ego certainty. Thus I am a great fan of real authority, authority based on what is and not on imagined belief, and not a fan at all of that certainty kind of self defined authority.

And if you want to know what real authority is, anything that I could put into words would not be it, or if it were, would be hidden behind how you would interpret my words.

But you are not an absolutely normal person and I suspect you already know this.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,056
8,335
136
When the voters of a community choose to tell greedy speculators and developers to go pound sand, the developers go bribe legislators in other districts to vote against the interests of the community that rejected their sweet nothings. This isn't democracy in action; it is corruption.

Your claim that nimbyism is the cause of a humanitarian crisis, offered without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. The cause of the homelessness crisis is the hyper-concentration of income.
The cause of homelessness is lack of homes.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
When the voters of a community choose to tell greedy speculators and developers to go pound sand, the developers go bribe legislators in other districts to vote against the interests of the community that rejected their sweet nothings. This isn't democracy in action; it is corruption.

Your claim that nimbyism is the cause of a humanitarian crisis, offered without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. The cause of the homelessness crisis is the hyper-concentration of income.
No, I argued that homelessness in the result of our system. Something that is also the result of our system is the hyper-concentration of income. NYMBism s also caused by the system. But a word of caution. Most people attribute things that cause thing they don't like to be bad like the causes themselves. I believe the results of causes are mechanical. X happens and Y is the result. It is the way it is and emotional reactions are due to ego attachment issues.