The Irish Problem of Cohesion: When solidarity becomes groupthink

Thanked except for the last bit, which I think would be a mistake. Let them stand in history as a shining example of Getting It Wrong and the dangers of running a state along theocratic lines.

Tell me, when did the Irish people 'vote' for the manner in which Irish society treated Irish women in Mother & Baby homes and Magdalene Laundries. I must have missed that referendum.

If we 'voted' for it, why have numerous Irish governments apologised for the state's treatment of women since the foundation of the state?

People voted for the governments which tolerated these things, they did not make it a political issue just as they do not demand that modern governments get rid of waiting lists for health, even though you could look on that as disgrace.

Yes they voted for the the constitution, which was designed to meet their needs. The measures which you deem "misogyny" like support for women in the home were welcome as they supported the majority of women in doing what they wanted to do.

The alternative Taoiseach to Dev in the 50s was John A. "I am a Catholic first, an Irishman second" Costello.

What do you mean "much later". The 1937 constitution explicitly prohibited divorce. The "special position" didn't amount to much constitutionally but was regarded as giving the Dail (the Seanad was originally supposed to protect the rights of protestants....!) free licence to legislate RCC doctrine into law, and gave great coverage to the Dept. of Education's (and others') imposition of catholic doctrine upon citizens by administrative means. Until well into the 1960s it also meant that any challenge to RCC doctrine-as-law on human rights grounds in our courts was completely pointless.

The data doesn't back this up. We have decades of reports and first-hand experiences on this issue. Rural life is car-dominated and if more people live in one off housing, they will jump into their car and instead of going to the village 3 km up the road, they will drive the 15km to the nearest big town, where there is a Tesco or a Dunnes or a bank or post office.

People like the Healy Raes talk a good game about saving rural Ireland but what do they mean by rural Ireland. More people than ever are now living in rural Ireland, it's just they are living in one-off housing, disconnected from the village or small town because that is the way planning laws allow it. So they will give out about trying to save the local post office, but then why does it need saving if more people are living around the hinterland? Maybe its because people vote with their feet, or in this case cars and will do their business in the large town instead of some poxy village that is hollowed out because everyone is living in some new detached build on some free inherited road frontage.

I get why one-off housing is popular to some, it is basically a state subsidy to live a certain way and a tax-free unearned gift from your folks because your folks and their folks inherited some free land, where you can build your house on the cheap, compared to buying one like most others.

At least if the government stopped subsidising these houses I'd maybe say, fair enough. If those living in rural Ireland had to pay taxes based on the size of their homes and pay the full cost of broadband installation and ESB connectivity, it would make many people think twice. Also, free land from the parents should be taxed!

Right, so you acknowledge that one-off housing is grossly inefficient and leads to car dependency.

For the other negatives, look at the data.

Here is Danny Healy Rae saying that Drink driving is not the issue, rural isolation is.

As to the inheritance, of course, not all people who live in one-off housing have gotten their land for free, but many have. Why else is the term 'road frontage' in the Irish vernacular?

It is funny that you ignore that Irish land can be inherited tax-free. So much so, richer families from south Dublin use it as a means to gift their children a tax-free capital lump sum. There are many quirks in Ireland that would need to be ironed out and this would be one of them.

Again just look at the data. One-off housing is just bad all around.

Now if you want to make a reasonable case for it, then fine. Work away, but you won't even do that, but just saying that there are 'bigger fish' to fry.

You said.

Are you now saying one-off housing is actually efficient?

That's the point. More people are one-off housing is actually educated professionals, rather than people that have anything to do with farming or the land.

As for data, if you live in rural Ireland you are more of risk of suicide.

But if you really want a deep dive, look here.

Outlines all the negatives of one off rural housing.

They want new housing constructed in existing or new settlements (e.g. villages, towns) rather than dotted in isolated locations.

Sorry, life in towns and villages is not worth living? If people don't live in physically isolated dwellings in open countryside the result must be "complete breakdown after a few years"?

Is this your first day on planet Earth?

That is very odd reasoning I must say. Not everyone wants to live in a bungalow in the middle of nowhere up the side of a mountain. The idea you put forward that the 'best' way to life is like that, does not correlate with the data for mental health.

The idea that people living in small to medium clusters, near walking distance to villages and small towns is somehow a hellish prophecy is laughable to the extreme. Why are those who favour one-off housing so much are prone to dramatics?

Dystopian? Living in a small village or town is dystopian? Dramatic much?

Your whole argument is based on "I will do what I WANT, I am alright Jack"

Worth pointing out that there is no requirement that ReginaldSmythV or anyone else should be required to live in a town or village. The suggestion is that new housing should be constructed in towns and villages, but here are plenty of one-off houses in rural locations already in existence and they can be freely bought, sold and occupied. So all Reg has to do is buy an existing house of the kind he likes. Unless, perchance, having to live in a second-hand house would deprive his life of all meaning and lead to a total breakdown in a few years.

You said:

"That [i.e. the construction of new housing in towns and villages rather than dotted in isolated locations] leaves nothing worth working towards in life at all and would only lead to a complete breakdown after a few years. Life needs to be worth living to fuel progression."

When challenged on this you accepted that different people wanted different things, and justified the statement by reference to your own need for a single house in the countryside.

Presumably you weren't suggesting that the entire nation would have a collective breakdown if ReginaldSmythV didn't get his dream home; the only person for whom that might conceivably trigger a breakdown is you.

My apologies if I have misunderstood you, but it's what I understood from what you wrote. And, having reread it, that still seems to me to be what you are saying.

As already pointed out, nobody has suggested building communes, never mind forcing anybody into them.

What is suggested is a policy of locating new housebuilding in existing towns and villages. This (a) is how most people already live; (b) has well-established social, economic and environmental benefits; (c) is how most people, in Ireland and worldwide, prefer to live and (d) is, historically, the norm for Ireland - the pattern of isolated rural dwellings was imposed by the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board in the late nineteenth century because they thought it would make smallholder farming more efficient. (Turned out that it didn't.)

All of which considerations suggest strongly that the policy is not going to lead to "a breakdown of society" which, frankly, is just a hysterical suggestion.

It's just expected that every other homeowner in the state will dig into their pocket to fix the problem du jour (mica, filth-spewing septic tanks, broadband, etc.) despite having had nothing to do with creating the problem in the first place...

Basically, it amounts to gifting of Captial and land from Dad, to live in a house they otherwise could not afford.

I highly doubt it given your contributions so far, but if you did, you will know the various issues that stem from a policy of one-off housing?

As I said, no one has made an actual rational or logical case for it. It boils down to, "Well because I want to do it and I am alright Jack".

There is a reason why most other countries in the EU ban this sort of development.