"Some preferences have to be sacrificed for society" is such a broad statement that it can cover everything from
"Maybe not every household needs its own industrial-grade leaf blower."
"Maybe we should accept denser housing and shared infrastructure."
"Maybe private lawns should become community gardens."
"You don't get control over your schedule."
"You don't get to choose your own aesthetics."
"You don't get to decide who has access to your emotional life."
"You don't get to opt out of communal activities."
"You don't get to have tastes that aren't socially approved."
Those are not remotely the same category of thing.
Some people treat all preferences as interchangeable units. They imagine a giant pile labeled "individual desires" and then talk about reducing it by 15%.
But preferences aren't equal.
Wanting three power drills when one shared drill would do is different from wanting control over your schedule.
Wanting a third car is different from wanting a bedroom door that locks.
Wanting a private yacht is different from wanting the ability to listen to music nobody else likes.
Wanting a 10,000-square-foot mansion is different from wanting to spend an evening alone.
The fact that these get lumped together is what makes the discussion so frustrating.
Because someone says, "Well, people will have to make sacrifices."
And I ask, "Okay, what sacrifices?"
And they think I'm being difficult.
No, that's the entire question.
A society that says, "You can't own six lawnmowers because we have a tool library" is making a very different demand from a society that says, "You can't go to bed when you're tired because the wellness committee has determined that lights-out is at 10 PM and not a minute earlier or later." The first one is actually a functional society. The second one is a "therapeutic" boarding school for adults.
gracieabrams
andulkaphoto
prguitarman
sugurugetos
gummygunk
areudirty
yousharknotpass
tangentwithtanner
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
