Tyndmyr wrote:As for the idea that personal preferences can never result in mass activity, you have heard of fads, yes?
Now you are just grasping at straws. If there is not enough space in one area to provide them with what they want, they will move somewhere else that can. Fads don't trump economics. But that's a temporary conflict over vacancies and construction, anyway, and not relevant at all to the conversation of whether people's ability to restrict entry to their own homes puts people in significant conflict; which, the only one you can come up with is mass migration, meaning the housing analogy itself just doesn't fit.
Fads, economics...both of these are reasons why people do things en masse. People frequently come into conflict over who lives where now, and have throughout history. There's different systems for dealing with this, but just assuming we can handwave the problem away is a bit ludicrous. Every functioning society I can think of has a justice system that handles who gets what. It's a fundamental part of society.
Look at Hippo's example. Two families, one house. It's a good, simple example. What happens if two siblings would both prefer to live in the family home and raise their own families there in turn? It's a modestly sized home, so there is not room for both, and anyways, the siblings don't get on well enough for that, and both think that they ought to get it now that their parents have passed on. Whoever doesn't get it will be unhappy. How do you solve this?
This ain't some odd hypothetical, comes up all the time.
Thesh wrote:Then you need therapy; it's not the rules over housing that's the problem, it's you. You are talking about two people being in dispute over something specific; no, not everyone will get their way all the time. I'm talking about the right to restrict people from their homes not being in conflict with others in general, not who has to move out after a breakup. Again, when people have their spaces, there is no conflict; this is only over people finding spaces, which is really not that big of a deal - sure, some people won't be happy but that's a personal issue not a political one. Either way, personal disputes are not the kinds of conflicts I'm interested in.
What's the boundary between the personal and the political, then?
Could you say that Trump's twitter feed is purely personal or purely political? What is the difference between a personal grievance and a political grievance to Trump? Do you think he makes a distinction, or even cares?
Politics, honestly, is just a bunch of personal grievances writ large. LGBT rights matter because they are the summation of many personal grievances. If actual people weren't being hurt/helped, would it matter as a political issue? The actual people involved are important at every level of politics.