> If there's no market for them, they won't get built.
That's something else, isn't it? The people who already live there might not want 50-story buildings, even if there are other people who would move into them if they were built.
That's something else, isn't it? The people who already live there might not want 50-story buildings, even if there are other people who would move into them if they were built.
That's a valid question for every law or other governmental decision. But we can think of an idealized case, where an entire town, or state, or country, agree that they don't want 50-story buildings, even if there exists outsiders who would like to move into such buildings. In this case, we need only recognize the right of the local people to decide what happens in their area, even if it is against the will of people from elsewhere.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/02/zonings-racist-roots-s...
On at least some level, I find it reasonable that the people who live in a certain place decide over that place. In any case, that is rather conventional, isn't it? It's particularly clear on the level of countries, which is why I mentioned it in my comment. Only citizens or residents of a country, not the rest of the world, get to vote in elections.
> The major question is what harm is being done to the local people by the existence of 50 story buildings
That's really a matter of their personal opinion. Some of us find such buildings repulsive.
I find lip piercings repulsive. I wouldn't want them made illegal. The country would be in a better place if people hadn't decided that there's a 0th amendment saying they had the right to never be offended by anything.
Why is xenophobia and NIMBYism acceptable in one case and not the other?
Yes, what if they do? Should they not get to decide because they might haver the wrong opinion? Who should decide instead? What if they have the wrong opinion?
> Why is xenophobia and NIMBYism acceptable in one case and not the other?
What two cases are you referring to?
Also, it's not obvious that NIMBY, as in "yes, do thing X, but not in my backyard", is relevant here, because it's not necessarily so that anyone is saying "yes, do thing X". For "NIMBY" to be a meaningful concept at all, it really needs to be about a situation when someone is pushing X onto someone else, while refusing to accept X in their own lives. If "NIMBY" used simply to describe a position of "no X, please", or even "no X, please, at least not in my backyard where I might have a say in it", then it's not useful, because those are perfectly reasonable positions to have about things.
Most people would think an entire town deciding to exclude minorities is morally repugnant and shouldn't be allowed.
What? I'm not saying I don't. It's just irrelevant to the issue.
> shouldn't be allowed.
That's like saying that "these people over here cannot be allowed to decide over their own neighborhood, because they might decide things that I find repugnant". Well, who are you going to trust with the power?