use Perl

• Why, Yes -- To Some Folks (Score:2, Insightful)

  by chaoticset (2105)

  There are people with an implicit faith in government. These are people who are vehement supporters of restrictions of just about anything. Whatever the problem is, laws are the best solution.

  Ice cream trucks annoy them, they want litigation. (No, that's not actually a joke, it's the truth.)

  Were the government a well-oiled machine, and were all these legal freaks in agreement, everything would be fine for them. It's all those other people with opinions that bother them.

  --
  
  ------------------------------
  You are what you think.
• Did you read what I read? (Score:3)

  by autarch (914) on 2003.08.29 15:12 (#23681) Homepage Journal

  Where in the two paragraphs you quoted did the person quoted say that sprawl should be made illegal? Nowhere.
  
  To work to contain sprawl could just mean to create incentives (governmental and/or otherwise) to discourage it.
  
  I think you're overreacting rather ridiculously.

  Reply to This

  • Re:Did you read what I read? (Score:2)

    by pudge (1)

    That doesn't change the fundamental belief that one should work to contain sprawl so that people won't be so fat is ridiculous.
    • Re:Did you read what I read? (Score:2)

      by autarch (914)

      Yeah, I don't really give a flying beep how fat people get. There are much better reasons to contain sprawl.
• Land is finite. (Score:3)

  by schwern (1528) on 2003.08.30 12:54 (#23690) Homepage Journal

  There's an American assumption that you have the right to spread out as wide as you like because there's always going to be more. A left over bit of Manifest Destiny from the pioneer days. Well, there ain't no more land out there and we've got to start thinking compact. European countries don't sprawl, they've figured out how to manage their land well enough to survive for the last few hundred years without a frontier to expand into. At the rate we're chewing up land, we're not going to make it even until 2050.

  This is obviously done better by incentives than legality, but there's no God Given Right for one to have a big slice of the prairie anymore.

  PS This is a reaction less to what you said and more to how forcefully you said it.

  Reply to This

  • Re:Land is finite. (Score:3, Funny)

    by ziggy (25)

    Well, there ain't no more land out there and we've got to start thinking compact.

    There's always Canada...
    • Re:Land is finite. (Score:2)

      by pudge (1)

      There still is a LOT of land in the U.S. that could be developed on. I am not in favor of eating up all the available land, but there is a lot of land to be eaten up. Most of it is in the middle of the country where no one wants to live, though. :-)