Flibbertigibbet

Comments Are Effed

My comments are effed right now. I went to post a response to Inspector's recent remarks and things went boom. I was going to write this to him:

I only say "country" because the hierarchies of government here already metastasized to such an extent that I doubt you could establish a city or town of any size that would create the proper political environment and sustain itself.

This is the first time I have ever heard that large cities arise due to or are sustained by statism. What facts are you basing this claim upon?

I'm not disagreeing that there are lots of statist policies that do sustain our large cities -- anyone familiar with New York state politics know that upstate resents the fact that so much state funding (read: tax dollars) goes to support NYC programs -- but I do not see that as being necessarily the case.

In urban development, my understanding is that it's generally been statism that prevents advanced development -- rent controls, zoning, even height limits on buildings, for example -- which ironically promote sprawl as seen in places like Atlanta and Los Angeles.

Given an ideal political environment, why would people suddenly shun urban life?

Or is your argument merely that given the present conditions, a sudden shift in political ideology toward one of freedom would result in a great population shift away from deep urban environments? Even still, I don't see that as being necessarily the case. I am sure a lot of people would leave, at first. But I am also sure that a lot of people would stay and others would probably move in. There are huge economic advantages to living in such close quarters.

But now I'm reading through his posts and although I'm only a page or two in, I think I see where he's going. I'll have to read more and I will likely comment on it here.