Re:What a progressive utopia does to outdoor dining
by PaulDavisThe1st on Monday December 13, 2021 @06:27PM
(#29546118)
> But let's assume our anscestors weren't idiots, that you and I aren't smarter than all of them, but that they were people who had good ideas that we can benefit from.
For many of us, we have ancestors (and cousins) in parts of the world where this is all just fine. So why would we prefer one set of ancestors over another? Why should we believe that the decisions the US-based ancestors somehow reflect a different reality here, rather than just, say, the motivations of the Prohibition movement?
Re:What a progressive utopia does to outdoor dining
by wolverine876 on Monday December 13, 2021 @06:34PM
(#29546189)
We might also consider that we are just as likely to do idiotic things as our ancestors. Looking around these days, maybe more likely.
I don't see it. Imagine rent in Manhatten or SF - it's hard to believe they couldn't make a mint. People want lots of things that commercial businesses sell; that's not what public interest means or all business is 'in the public interest'.
> 2. This is false. Public "outdoor" alcohol consumption is generally acceptable and if put on the ballot would win in most places. It's legal where I live, in Austin TX.
Can you back up your claim about popularity? It's illegal in most places I know.
> 3. Sidewalks were built to encourage pedestrian foot traffic in cities. Outdoor dining also increases foot traffic. The two concepts aren't opposed, they are mutually beneficial.
That's called a public nuiscance: We could have concerts and everything else on sidewalks, which would both attract foot traffic and obstruct it. That doesn't lead to good results.
> We shouldn't become a veto-ocracy.
That doesn't tell us much: Do we throw out all laws? Traffic lights? The question is, where to draw lines. But let's assume our anscestors weren't idiots, that you and I aren't smarter than all of them, but that they were people who had good ideas that we can benefit from.