You're viewing a single thread.
Zoning for single-family housing is regulation and is done to boost landlord profits at the expense of working people.
The mortgage-interest tax deduction only benefits wealthier households, while giving nothing to poorer households who rent.
There are many regulations that artificially funnel money upward and would be improved by "deregulating" those parts. Deregulation doesn't have to mean removing safety procedures.
If the states and cities legalized dense housing then much poverty would be relieved.
Sure. I don't think anybody is arguing that there is any country that couldn't give their regulations a once-over and improve things by removing a few counter-productive ones here and there.
That's not what American style libertarians are actually arguing when they say they want deregulation though, is it?
That's generally the type of thing libertarians get upset about. Or shit like floral licensing or cracking down on people braiding hair (this is generally black people, obviously) or the bazillion other types of regulatory capture. Farm subsidies and ethanol mandates/fuel subsidies are also a shitshow.
Exactly! Libertarians point to one regulation that isn’t working and push total deregulation. Why not just fix that one regulation? No, absolute deregulation is the only answer.
Exactly. It's stupid to be like libertarians and take a hardline stance on "regulations always bad!!" or "regulations always good!!". A regulation that bans building dense, walkable communities is bad and needs to be eliminated. Likewise, regulations that ban teachers from talking about the existence of gay people are also bad and need to be eliminated.
Just like we try to use regulations for good, many others use regulations for ill. It will always be context-specific specific whether we need more regulation or deregulation.
When actual libertarians get a chance to run a town, they don't start by eliminating zoning laws. This is the kind of thing that happens instead.
Bears have a better libertarian ideology
I'm not surprised by the fact it did collapse, but i'm surprised that libertarians, of all people, did not try to solve the bear problem using extensive amounts of firepower.
It did mention that several times the town did form posses to go and cull the bears, but didn't do enough because you also had people just feeding the shit out of them.
Let the bears pay the bear tax!
You talk as if benefiting the ruling class was an unwanted consequence of these laws. It’s not. The markets need to be free for the rich to benefit but restricted for the rich to benefit. And maybe some crumbs will fall of the table and the poors will think that the rich are so generous.
You talk as if benefiting the ruling class was an unwanted consequence of these laws.
I never said that, what are you talking about?
These laws are intentionally designed to enrich the ruling class.
"talk as if" and "literally said" are two wholly different things. They never said that, what are you talking about?
I asked where I "talked as if" it was unintentional.
Now you are acting like my last comment said it had to be explicit, or literal. That's entirely made up in your head, nothing about my last comment said that.
Reading comprehension seems to be a big problem for people today.
And I'm asking where I "talked as if" this were unintentional.
Nothing in my comment said that, explicitly or implicitly.
And I'm asking where I "talked as if" this were unintentional.
Nothing in my comment said that, explicitly or implicitly.
And I'm asking where I "talked as if" this were unintentional.
Nothing in my comment said that, explicitly or implicitly.
Note that you are putting literally said in quotes as if my last comment used the word literally, which it didn't.
So, you are agreeing with libertarians?
No, there should be rules to benefit the poor. But many of the laws now in effect in particular in the US are specifically not built for that. So many laws would better be dropped than enforced, and many are missing.
Why there should be rules to benefit the poor, as opposed minimalistic neutral rules beneficial to the whole society and safety net like UBI? (that what libertarian would argue)
I guess it's a matter of semantics and if you're an existing rich person, right? Cause from the perspective of the rich closing up those loop holes would be perceived as purely benefitting the poor.
For neutral rules to truly be neutral, you almost need to ensure there are services and programs to bring that opportunity to everyone, else it's just appears more fair without actually increasing accessibility. Which to your point would be something like UBI.
That's the irony.
But Density means communism to them so they're suddenly fine with regulations and taxes that prop up an unsustainable suburban ponzi scheme because that's the lie sold about the American Dream.
When they see how unaffordable housing has become they say, "good, my house is more expensive."