American far right isn't fascist, it's libertarian

[Kron3007]

How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?

By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.

The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many.  I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils. 

I am in Canada, but fall into this boat.  It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.

[marshwiggle]

How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?

By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.

The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many.  I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils. 

I am in Canada, but fall into this boat.  It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.

Realistically, this is to be expected. There are many different dimensions of governing, and there's no reason that a party's position on one issue automatically dictates a specific position on a completely different issue. (The terms "left" and "right" imply everything is on a one-dimensional continuum, but I believe that terminology just came from the layout of the French National Assembly.) There would probably need to be as many parties as citizens for everyone to find a party with whom they agree on everything.

[Kron3007]

How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?

By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.

The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many.  I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils. 

I am in Canada, but fall into this boat.  It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.

Realistically, this is to be expected. There are many different dimensions of governing, and there's no reason that a party's position on one issue automatically dictates a specific position on a completely different issue. (The terms "left" and "right" imply everything is on a one-dimensional continuum, but I believe that terminology just came from the layout of the French National Assembly.) There would probably need to be as many parties as citizens for everyone to find a party with whom they agree on everything.

This is true, but I feel the two party system in the USA makes it much more extreme. There are also a issues around electoral systems that contribute to the feeling that your vote dosn't matter (electoral college in the US, first past the post system here).  In the end, a lot of people don't feel the government represents them at all regardless of who is voted in, or that they have any agency in the process.

Again, this largely describes me.  Despite many of the differences between parties, there are many issues where I dont see much difference among parties and my opinion is just not represented.  In many cases, they offer up different sounding policies that avoid addressing some of the core issues where they are really no different. 

A good example of this right now is housing prices.  They all acknowledge it is an issue and offer up different sounding solutions, but none of them are willing to do anything that would actually address the problem.  The end result is a selection of meaningless platitudes.     

[marshwiggle]

How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?

By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.

The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many.  I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils. 

I am in Canada, but fall into this boat.  It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.

Realistically, this is to be expected. There are many different dimensions of governing, and there's no reason that a party's position on one issue automatically dictates a specific position on a completely different issue. (The terms "left" and "right" imply everything is on a one-dimensional continuum, but I believe that terminology just came from the layout of the French National Assembly.) There would probably need to be as many parties as citizens for everyone to find a party with whom they agree on everything.

This is true, but I feel the two party system in the USA makes it much more extreme. There are also a issues around electoral systems that contribute to the feeling that your vote doesn't matter (electoral college in the US, first past the post system here).  In the end, a lot of people don't feel the government represents them at all regardless of who is voted in, or that they have any agency in the process.

I totally agree. The two party system essentially makes EVERY election a battle between US and THEM, GOOD and EVIL, etc.

Again, this largely describes me.  Despite many of the differences between parties, there are many issues where I don't see much difference among parties and my opinion is just not represented.  In many cases, they offer up different sounding policies that avoid addressing some of the core issues where they are really no different. 

A good example of this right now is housing prices.  They all acknowledge it is an issue and offer up different sounding solutions, but none of them are willing to do anything that would actually address the problem.  The end result is a selection of meaningless platitudes.   

Housing prices gives a good example of the dilemma parties face. Some price increases are due to things like foreign speculation, which probably most people would agree is bad since it hurts local residents to favour offshore rich people. However, what happens in the case of people who have owned a house for decades, done lots of renos, perhaps even mostly by their own sweat if they're handy? Shouldn't they be able to realize the gains due in part to their own labour, and certainly NOT due to speculation or any of those bad things?

There are all kinds of scenarios that prevent there being a common idea of what is "fair", even if everyone realizes the pace of price increases is unsustainable, even to the point of a possible impending crash.

[mahagonny]

How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?

By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.

The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many.  I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils. 

I am in Canada, but fall into this boat.  It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.

The democrats are about to get creamed. That's what their problem is. Now that they are starting to realize this they want to talk.
In an academic discussion forum, the democrats and left have a clear majority. But that doesn't mean they have an electoral advantage. They talk like they do, anyway.
Picking the lesser of two evils is a lot better than not voting. Fine with me!

[Kron3007]

How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?

By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.

The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many.  I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils. 

I am in Canada, but fall into this boat.  It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.

Realistically, this is to be expected. There are many different dimensions of governing, and there's no reason that a party's position on one issue automatically dictates a specific position on a completely different issue. (The terms "left" and "right" imply everything is on a one-dimensional continuum, but I believe that terminology just came from the layout of the French National Assembly.) There would probably need to be as many parties as citizens for everyone to find a party with whom they agree on everything.

This is true, but I feel the two party system in the USA makes it much more extreme. There are also a issues around electoral systems that contribute to the feeling that your vote doesn't matter (electoral college in the US, first past the post system here).  In the end, a lot of people don't feel the government represents them at all regardless of who is voted in, or that they have any agency in the process.

I totally agree. The two party system essentially makes EVERY election a battle between US and THEM, GOOD and EVIL, etc.

Again, this largely describes me.  Despite many of the differences between parties, there are many issues where I don't see much difference among parties and my opinion is just not represented.  In many cases, they offer up different sounding policies that avoid addressing some of the core issues where they are really no different. 

A good example of this right now is housing prices.  They all acknowledge it is an issue and offer up different sounding solutions, but none of them are willing to do anything that would actually address the problem.  The end result is a selection of meaningless platitudes.   

Housing prices gives a good example of the dilemma parties face. Some price increases are due to things like foreign speculation, which probably most people would agree is bad since it hurts local residents to favour offshore rich people. However, what happens in the case of people who have owned a house for decades, done lots of renos, perhaps even mostly by their own sweat if they're handy? Shouldn't they be able to realize the gains due in part to their own labour, and certainly NOT due to speculation or any of those bad things?

There are all kinds of scenarios that prevent there being a common idea of what is "fair", even if everyone realizes the pace of price increases is unsustainable, even to the point of a possible impending crash.

Most people do agree that foreign speculation is bad, but no political party has proposed anything that would prevent, or substantially reduce it.  The foreign investor taxes they introduced are far too low to have much impact and there are too many loopholes.  This is why it is a good example, none of the political parties are willing to address the issue even though I think most people would want them to.  As a result, many people have to choose between options that simply do not reflect their stance (on this topic). 

As for people that invested to improve property, they should indeed reap rewards, but not to the extreme levels we see now.  As you say, the growth is unsustainable, so the market will either end up crashing or the upcoming generation will simply not be able to afford housing unless they are born in the right family.  Either way, this was a fairly major item in the recent election yet none of the parties offered anything of substance. 

This is simply one example, and there are many more that leave a large segment of the population feeling that they are not being represented at all.

[marshwiggle]

Most people do agree that foreign speculation is bad, but no political party has proposed anything that would prevent, or substantially reduce it.  The foreign investor taxes they introduced are far too low to have much impact and there are too many loopholes.  This is why it is a good example, none of the political parties are willing to address the issue even though I think most people would want them to.  As a result, many people have to choose between options that simply do not reflect their stance (on this topic). 

As for people that invested to improve property, they should indeed reap rewards, but not to the extreme levels we see now.  As you say, the growth is unsustainable, so the market will either end up crashing or the upcoming generation will simply not be able to afford housing unless they are born in the right family.  Either way, this was a fairly major item in the recent election yet none of the parties offered anything of substance. 

This is simply one example, and there are many more that leave a large segment of the population feeling that they are not being represented at all.

But every issue (like this) has the problem evident in Brexit and Quebec independence. Lots of people want "something" to change, but many of their ideas for what to change are actually mutually exclusive. So as soon as any SPECIFIC measure is proposed, the "unity" of desire for change is fractured. Parties know this,  and so their safest bet is to talk about "change" without being very specific. Once in power, they're paralyzed by the knowledge that whatever they do will be much less popular than the basic idea of "change".

[dismalist]

People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]! Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.

Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.

[marshwiggle]

People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]!

It depends somewhat on the market. Vancouver has had a lot more pressure because of that, (including lots of unoccupied houses owned by Asian investors), than other Canadian cities.

Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.

Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.

Yes, that last point is the important one.

[dismalist]

People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]!

It depends somewhat on the market. Vancouver has had a lot more pressure because of that, (including lots of unoccupied houses owned by Asian investors), than other Canadian cities.

Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.

Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.

Yes, that last point is the important one.

No, it's all important! :-)

Prices up in Vancouver? One can move bricks and mortar from anywhere even to Vancouver to build more houses. That is not happening on account of -- us.

In general, it's hard to find special cases when people and good are mobile. Law of One Price. So, when this law doesn't apply, one looks for barriers to mobility.

Wait 'til we all Zoom for everything!

[marshwiggle]

People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]!

It depends somewhat on the market. Vancouver has had a lot more pressure because of that, (including lots of unoccupied houses owned by Asian investors), than other Canadian cities.

Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.

Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.

Yes, that last point is the important one.

No, it's all important! :-)

Prices up in Vancouver? One can move bricks and mortar from anywhere even to Vancouver to build more houses.

Sure, but you can't move the ocean and mountains to other places. And the space between said ocean and mountains is finite, so the desirability of the location and the space available are factors that have nothing to do with regulation.

[apl68]

How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?

By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.

The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many.  I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils. 

I am in Canada, but fall into this boat.  It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.

Realistically, this is to be expected. There are many different dimensions of governing, and there's no reason that a party's position on one issue automatically dictates a specific position on a completely different issue. (The terms "left" and "right" imply everything is on a one-dimensional continuum, but I believe that terminology just came from the layout of the French National Assembly.) There would probably need to be as many parties as citizens for everyone to find a party with whom they agree on everything.

This is true, but I feel the two party system in the USA makes it much more extreme.

Well...maybe.  But if there's a party for every possible voter profile, then you've got lots and lots of parties, some of them quite extreme.  In nations where the legislature is balkanized into many parties, every government has to be a coalition government.  Which in some cases can give a lot of influence to a relatively small but extreme party that can offer itself as a kind of swing voter.  Or create situations where parties can't agree to form a coalition, and the legislature ends up gridlocked as Congress has often found itself in recent years.

This is one reason why I'm skeptical of the notion that our democracy is broken because our constitution is broken, and could be fixed if we just tinkered with it enough to make it more like this or that other country's system.  If the culture throws up enough alienated extremists, then no set of political safeguards can insure good operation of government.

[dismalist]

People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]!

It depends somewhat on the market. Vancouver has had a lot more pressure because of that, (including lots of unoccupied houses owned by Asian investors), than other Canadian cities.

Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.

Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.

Yes, that last point is the important one.

No, it's all important! :-)

Prices up in Vancouver? One can move bricks and mortar from anywhere even to Vancouver to build more houses.

Sure, but you can't move the ocean and mountains to other places. And the space between said ocean and mountains is finite, so the desirability of the location and the space available are factors that have nothing to do with regulation.

Lucky if one has been in Vancouver before the rush!

What, is that like Monaco?

Build up, man, build up! That is so cheap. Get that density up so that more people can enjoy the space between the ocean and the mountains. No one does on account the existing owners are benefiting from existing regulation.

[marshwiggle]

People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]!

It depends somewhat on the market. Vancouver has had a lot more pressure because of that, (including lots of unoccupied houses owned by Asian investors), than other Canadian cities.

Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.

Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.

Yes, that last point is the important one.

No, it's all important! :-)

Prices up in Vancouver? One can move bricks and mortar from anywhere even to Vancouver to build more houses.

Sure, but you can't move the ocean and mountains to other places. And the space between said ocean and mountains is finite, so the desirability of the location and the space available are factors that have nothing to do with regulation.

Lucky if one has been in Vancouver before the rush!

What, is that like Monaco?

Build up, man, build up! That is so cheap. Get that density up so that more people can enjoy the space between the ocean and the mountains. No one does on account the existing owners are benefiting from existing regulation.

Then you have the drive-in theatre problem. High things near the water block the view from lower things behind. It becomes a height arms race. The problem with completely unfettered markets is that it allows the richest jerks to basically screw everyone else.
I'm not a socialist by any means, but just allowing the richest and most powerful to do whatever they want doesn't make for a pleasant society.

[dismalist]

People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]!

It depends somewhat on the market. Vancouver has had a lot more pressure because of that, (including lots of unoccupied houses owned by Asian investors), than other Canadian cities.

Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.

Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.

Yes, that last point is the important one.

No, it's all important! :-)

Prices up in Vancouver? One can move bricks and mortar from anywhere even to Vancouver to build more houses.

Sure, but you can't move the ocean and mountains to other places. And the space between said ocean and mountains is finite, so the desirability of the location and the space available are factors that have nothing to do with regulation.

Lucky if one has been in Vancouver before the rush!

What, is that like Monaco?

Build up, man, build up! That is so cheap. Get that density up so that more people can enjoy the space between the ocean and the mountains. No one does on account the existing owners are benefiting from existing regulation.

Then you have the drive-in theatre problem. High things near the water block the view from lower things behind. It becomes a height arms race. The problem with completely unfettered markets is that it allows the richest jerks to basically screw everyone else.
I'm not a socialist by any means, but just allowing the richest and most powerful to do whatever they want doesn't make for a pleasant society.

Never meant to imply a Houston, which works because it is surrounded by desert. If you don't build up, completely fettered, not unfettered, markets make sure the original owners win, and politicos make sure it's kept that way.