The way forward is not to 'torch the rule of law'.
There are plenty of ways to do things. Oregon just passed a housing law (HB 2001) that re-legalizes "missing middle" housing for instance, by right, in all our cities.
In other words, you take some of the zoning control away from hyper-NIMBY local jurisdictions.
Larger political entities can consider more than the narrow, selfish interests of a few "I've got mine" NIMBYs, such as future residents, the racist history of zoning, and the impact on the environment of forcing people to commute a long ways.
Local control in places like Palo Alto is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.
Some of us would like our children to be able to live in the place they are growing up. And we value what newcomers and immigrants bring to the table in terms of hard work, new ideas, energy, and so on.
Also, one of the easiest ways to make people better off is to let them move to where the jobs are. That used to be very common in the United States. That has been stunted in some part by rigid land use laws that pull up the ladder behind the people who got in while the getting was good.
There is a lot of work in economics showing the benefits of clustering, rather than having a talented up and coming person move to, say, Cyanide Springs Oklahoma because it's cheap.
If you want your children to live there, perhaps allowing newcomers isn't the best idea? Our housing prices go up up up as does our population, and the only approved solution seems to be to lower our quality of life.
Unless you think living in an apartment with no garage, no yard, no storage, and no way to stockpile food (save costs) is a quality of life increase?
Our children will probably not have children if forced to live this way at this price.
Personally I don't really get it, but I don't live in San Francisco.
> Our children will probably not have children if forced to live this way at this price.
Maybe check out some other parts of the world where this is the norm, and people have plenty of kids, once the pandemic is over.
And it's not a given that that happens in any case. People might not choose to live quite so densely, but if they want to, the option is there.
Look at the 'Montreal' option in that article for instance. That'd add a lot of people without having Big Towers.
And I actually lived in Italy, in a flat, with no yard for a while. It was great - we'd go to the park with my kids where they'd almost always see friends. Way better than our big yard here in the US where "there's nothing to do".
I'm Not from the US, but from a country with overwhelming support for same-sex marriage. I'm also from a country that has a proper democracy where voter turn out is 98+% and first-past the post isn't a thing.
What is the alternative you suggest... you hope you get a ruler who agrees with you? Good luck with that.
Glad to hear you live in a country like that, I wish I could say the same. But these are core difficulties with the United States that aren't going away any time soon.
The nation is very divided and there's no hope of overthrowing first-past-the-post here.
And when the nation doesn't agree on things, allowing the majority to rule can be terrifying.
That's not true, I'm quite certain a number of states have started removing first-past-the-post in favour of preferential systems. (Sorry I don't know the states nor what the term for the above is in the US).
I agree democracy has its flaws... but what's the alternative? (This is highly off topic sorry). But complaining that minority rule to protect a "Happy Neighbourhood" is morally equivalent to "gay rights" seems like a dishonest argument to me.
My point is that these things can be morally ambiguous depending on the society you talk to. There are many places on earth that don't allow gay marriage to this day (or anything gay at all).
One of the main problems with democracy is that it incentives politicians to buy voters, rather than use principled judgment. Everything becomes "politicking" to the lowest common denominator, because they have the most votes, and are most influenced by emotion.
Every system has it's flaws, and ultimately, I believe the problem is the people, not the government. If people were more principled, they wouldn't be susceptible to this emotional rhetoric. Monarchies are not inherently unjust, although many of them have been.
One additional problem with democracy, at least in the US, is that it sells out to the highest bidder. The masses are easily manipulated with TV and other propaganda, and they are the ones who elect the winner. It's like an oligarchy - the politicans are beholden to big money.
But people blame the politicans, not the oligarchs. They vote out "bad" politicians, only for new puppets to take their place, protecting the true masters (business interests, wall street, etc).
In a true oligarchy, people eventually go for blood. It's a joke to think that the riots on Jan 6th would do anything - kill the puppets, and the puppeteer brings in a new prop.
But effective democracy limits financing, which solves the buying votes problem.
Investment in education solves a lot of the manipulation problem.
You are Using one of the most dysfunctional democracies as your standard and then pointing out how bad that standard is. The US is a pathetic excuse for a democracy. It’s got some really great ideas that are stifled intentionally.
But you haven’t provided an alternative...
And back to the original point... you would like a monarch to rule The Bay Area?
Please don’t stop at Plato, Aristotle expanded on it and specifically made some key observations around democracy relating to “the wisdom of the masses”.
There are plenty of ways to do things. Oregon just passed a housing law (HB 2001) that re-legalizes "missing middle" housing for instance, by right, in all our cities.
In other words, you take some of the zoning control away from hyper-NIMBY local jurisdictions.