This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The YIMBY/Abundance types will constantly point out that this was a policy/culture choice that happened in the latter part of the 20th century.
We used to be just fine at massive public works projects, including railroads.
It's not an inherent feature of the common law, and in fact typically involves the violation of property rights due to e.g. environmental concerns. What changed is the regulatory environment.
Nothing proves this more than the fact it is extremely difficult to build green energy in California because of environmental regulations.
I thought the bulk of US (and, for that matter, British) rail construction in the 19th century was due to the private sector, not public works, hence the rise of the so-called robber barons.
But this doesn’t really contradict your main point: in those days, the law was written/interpreted in ways favorable to rail companies and their interests, and thus they had free rein to “build, baby, build”. Nowadays, any legislator who proposed such a pro-growth regulatory environment would be raked over the coals as a corporate shill in the pocket of Big Business.
I wish Noah Smith, Matt Yglesias, and the rest of the YIMBY/Abundance gang the very best of luck in threading that particular needle in California. They’re gonna need it.
The railroads themselves were built by private operators, but they typically involved some level of state involvement; usually in order to acquire the rights-of-way they were built on either the land was seized and then granted/sold to them by the government, or they were granted limited powers of eminent domain by the state. So in either case they were still operating within a similar legal environment. In Canada and the US the government was fond of subsidizing railway development by offering massive land grants that the railway companies could then develop/flip/use to their purposes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's clearly a policy choice to take continually expanding First Nations' claims (one of the blockers for infrastructure in Canada) seriously. Granted, it's not purely a legislative decision - the judiciary has its role here. But nobody forced Trudeau to enshrine these rights even further by rolling the UNs view of native rights into law and making it a part of his administration (even after he left Canada was paying off claims)
Environmentalists help it along by cynically claiming FN have an absolute right of veto, which conveniently suits their interests.
Certainly so far Carney has established very different messaging with respect to First Nations' involvement in infrastructure projects. It's been made very clear they no longer have a veto, and that the duty to consult does not mean the duty to acquire their consent. We'll see what that actually looks like in action, and at some point the courts are going to wade in and have their say, but the flip from the Trudeau government is quite notable - so far.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link