One belief, widely held by Americans and Canadians, that I don't believe in.
"I was here first. Therefore, I get extra rights and decision making powers"
Classic example is NIMBYism. I really really don't give a shit if every member of your community has lined up and sacrificed a limb to vote against a housing development. I don't respect your consensus and I wish to undermine it!
Another example: the bar for citizenship in every country should be much much lower. If I Chinese person is here in Canada for like 2 years they should be able to vote and buy as much property as they want.
The word "native" is disgusting to me and I try to never use it. If you live someplace for a few years you are as much of a native as someone who was born there.
@Elmkast Hehe indeed. That's the definition of nativism. NIMBYism is in fact the derivative phenomenon.
@Elmkast Isn't this the essence of a parent-child relationship?
@duane I was thinking more in terms of land/citizenship. But there is truth to that!
Ha, just thinking about where the structure/psychology of the claim might come from. Might bring insight into possible solutions.
@Elmkast Shouldn’t people with skin in the game have more authority?
@octesian What skin? What game?
If you mean financial assets, then hell no. If you mean a vested emotional connection, not sure how you'd even qualify that so still no
The deal is they have to invest 1 million, or half a million and create a certain amount of jobs.
What they do is set up companies that trade the same few million euro houses between a few chinese millionares.
@Elmkast not more financial assets in general but if you own something, or a portion of something your say should mean more than someone’s who isn’t an owner on matters of that thing. It’s a basic part of property rights.
@octesian Sounds fair enough - but what happens when people buy a home in a neighborhood with the expectation of that neighborhood staying a certain way and the schools in that neighborhood staying a certain way? Do they have a right to control what goes on outside their property line?
(they argue yes, because the bulk of their property value has nothing to do with what's on the lot)
@octesian Personally I think purchasing a home should be literally that - there is no extra "vote" included.
This ties back to my original toot: many people disagree with me and think those there "first" should get veto power
That doesn't even sound so bad, until you realize that people use that veto power to ruthlessly pursue self interest
@Elmkast if you buy a house you own both the house and a share in the neighborhood. I agree that people who got there first shouldn’t have a greater vote, but they should still get a vote on anything their tax dollars are paying for.
@Elmkast it gets blurry though. Locals should have more power than tourists for example since they’re motivated for more long term thinking. The issue is that the more money you have the more mobile you are, blurring the line between local and tourist. Some places may even be all tourist/partial-local occupied.
The exhortation at the root is “You only have one body! How much can you possibly want!”
@aRandomCat I would say that locals in many city have chosen to invite and indulge tourists because of the obvious economic benefits. To which someone might say, "well not the real locals" and then we are just back to my original point
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!