site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 2023

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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

YIMBY sentiment on this forum has (I think) been mostly focused on increasing the density of existing residential zones. However, it may be worth noting that there is an alternative: converting existing agricultural or unused land to low-density residential use (i. e., continuing to "sprawl"). In this article, a former employee of the libertarian Cato Institute accuses that organization of focusing exclusively on high-density housing, and of smearing as racist people who are not interested in long-term high-density living and clamor for more single-family houses. (In his view, upzoning imposed from the top down is not libertarian, because the existing owners have a sort of property right in the zoning of their neighborhood as a substitute for deed restrictions that could or should have been used instead of zoning codes.)

Urban sprawl satisfies libertarian YIMBYs. More homes, more lawns, more castles, more basement home theaters and pinball rooms, more space for your children to grow up physically and socially distant from their peers, in places without sidewalks, where mom has to deliver them to and pick them up from soccer practice or their friends house. Where you need a taxi to be able to go drink with your friends. Where getting out of your car is inconvenient and so every service, from the bank to Starbucks, is drive ‘thru’. A place where you have to drive to walk your dog in sanctioned green space nearby. Hell, a place where you have to drive to walk at all.

Isn't this hellscape exactly the product of government regulation? I.e single-family zoning (with a lot of additional bizarre rules) in the US? Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. The rest of your rant is about how the moral failings of libertarians can be disregarded based on its shoddy premise.

Single-family suburbs wouldn't dominate a libertarian economy even if people really wanted it.. because they are grossly economically inefficient if not net burdens and when there are no subsidies you either abandon your white picket dream or pay a hefty price for it, most won't consider it worth bearing that additional cost.

Japan's zoning laws are a lot less stringent than in the US, and you get more of what you consider good, not less of it.

Isn't this hellscape exactly the product of government regulation?

Yes, but a different government regulation than the one you are pointing to:

The real culprit is criminalizing racial covenants (and similar ones relating to status and income) in housing contracts. Because of this, the only way to separate yourself in physical space from the criminal poor is by making living in your general area very expensive. Thus, you need single family zoning, minimum lot sizes, and lack of public transit into your neighborhoods. If you could have a whole neighborhood where it was illegal to move in without being married and at least one spouse with a college degree, minimum income of $150k, then there would be no reason to ban duplexes.

How much of the problem do you think is caused by the racial element and how much by the other elements?

They are fairly inseparable.