u/Fried_out_Kombi

Solarpunk mostly agrees on the outcome -- a high-tech, high-prosperity, and sustainable society -- with differing ideas on how to get there, but imo, the best solutions include:

* Georgist economics, i.e., people should be taxed for the land they occupy, the natural resources they consume, and the negative externalities they produce, *not* on the fruits of their labor. Practically, that means things like switching from most existing taxes to land value taxes, severance taxes, and Pigouvian taxes (e.g., carbon tax); zoning reform so it's legal and easy to build dense, transit-oriented communities; a citizen's dividend or UBI; IP reform (especially on patents) to combat monopolies and rent-seeking; and quite a bit more to try to eliminate rent-seeking and monopolies.

* Sortitioned democracy, i.e., jury duty democracy. Randomly draw citizens assemblies to hear from experts, deliberate, and legislate instead of dealing with representative democracy and the political class it creates. Empirical evidence shows sortitioned democracy is less corrupt and more competent in its decision-making than elected representatives.

* YIMBYism. Folds in with Georgism, but still worth a separate mention. In short, we have all sorts of laws and processes such as zoning that make it extremely difficult if not illegal to build more of the things we need to build: dense multi-family housing, renewable energy infrastructure, public transit, and bicycle infrastructure. As such, we should eliminate these barriers and make it legal and easy to build these things.

* Demurrage currency, i.e., money that rusts. Also kind of falls under Georgism, but it's basically an application of land value taxes to currency: like land, currency is inherently finite (else you get runaway inflation), therefore you should be taxed for hoarding it to encourage you to put it to good use. Under a proper system of incentives, that "good use" could mean some investment fund that funds housing construction, renewables, public transit, etc. As an example, here in Montreal, we just got a brand new high-frequency automated light metro system that was funded and built by the Quebec public pension fund. The pension fund built the system, and the fares paid on it go back to paying for people's pensions. All with the bonus of drastically improving Montreal's public transit and reducing our reliance on cars!

A common sentiment I've seen from NIMBYs a number of times now is the notion that they bought their suburban home for the neighborhood, not just for the house. They feel like they bought the neighborhood, in a way, hence the vehement objection to any changes in that neighborhood.

Of course, the fundamental misunderstanding is that they did not, in fact, buy the neighborhood, only the house.

In urban centers, it's a similar sentiment with new high-rises obstructing views: people feel entitled to their view, like they bought not just their home but the view that -- in their mind -- comes with it.

I'm not entirely sure how we fix this issue, because it seems to be a pretty deep-rooted and central to the NIMBY mindset. A deep-rooted sense of entitlement to control and own that which you do not actually own.

Curious to hear others' thoughts on this.

meirl

Policies for a solarpunk future

land rule

NIMBYs misunderstand what they are buying