[philipodonnell]

I wish more people though this way.

If something is a rule then the majority decided it should be that way. If you don't like it, then you are in the minority. If that surprises you, then you may not be accurately measuring the real majorities and minorities, and it would benefit all of to try to understand what the real rules are.

[TulliusCicero]

Yes and no:

- People often want to limit housing in their particular city/neighborhood, but

- They agree that there should be more housing built somewhere, just not near them

It's like being for pollution regulations, except that you demand that you yourself (and your buddies) be exempt. Normally that wouldn't work in a democracy, but imagine that only the polluters get to vote: that's how land use regulations get decided (because the beneficiaries of lower housing costs would be largely potential residents, and you have to live there to vote).

In practice, the solution is to have zoning decisions made at a higher level; at the metro area level is probably the best one, since they tend to function as economic units, and that mimics how people tend to choose housing.

[BearGoesChirp]

>If something is a rule then the majority decided it should be that way.

Few systems are direct democracies. Isn't it more likely the people decided the rule maker should be who the rule maker is (or makers are) and the rule maker(s) then decided what the law should be. And that is just some of the political systems you can model.

Think of like how congress like a <25% approval rating but most of them keep getting voted back in.

[0xB31B1B]

Not quite sure what this comment means but it feels like you are saying “these rules exist Because a democratically influenced process came up with them so we shouldn’t change them”, which if true is not great reasoning for the following reasons:

1) things change over time, policies that at one time protected people move on to be things that increase inequality or worsen outcomes.

2) Politics has a long history of excluding less powerful voices. Right now in cities, there is a movement to “re-enfranchise” the people whom have often been ignored, minorities and renters. Often times the will of the people changes because those who were locked out of the decision making process 10/20/30 years ago now hold much more political power and able to influence outcomes.

3) if your bias is “current policy is best policy” then you are biased to favor the voices of the moderately wealthy white home owners who created modern urban land use policy over the past 50 years at the expense of renters and minorities.

[natalyarostova]

There is a field of political economy called collective action, which has been around in its current form for roughly a century now, which aims to study exactly why what you just wrote is so frequently not true. Check it out.