| > You've made the, "If you don't like the oppression here, move to Somalia" argument Errr, yes, this is a very valid critique. My argument was based on the assumptions you seemed to be coming from, which fit the same pattern of conjuring up new structures out of thin air: >> If black neighborhoods are underserved, go make a fortune in black neighborhood grocery stores or their suppliers. You then continued on about "men with guns" and willfully ignoring that actions on one piece of real estate can affect someone on another piece of real estate. All three are common tropes of right libertarianism. Hence my: > not somehow having high population density without any conflict-resolving regulations. because I thought this is where you were coming from. But if you're really just arguing for "Merely liberalization", that's fantastic! Argue away, and you will get no argument from me on this topic (I don't live in a dense area, and I still recognize that the high cost of housing is strangling our society). But perhaps reformulate your arguments so they don't come off as dead end right libertarian tropes. (Although I will say, completely independently of the rest of this exchange, and obviously not as a replacement for liberalization - if we could figure out a way to bootstrap new [non-car-based] cities in this country, that could go a long way as well) |