3 ms·

By the Copenhagen Theory of Ethics (https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-et

by raldi 11y ago

By the Copenhagen Theory of Ethics (https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...), once you rent an apartment to someone for a particular price, you have a moral obligation to continue doing that forever.

pc86 11y ago
I don't see the word "rent" anywhere in your linked article but maybe a synonym is there somewhere. Regardless, if you agree to rent $PROPERTY to $TENANT and I you want to sell me $PROPERTY, I don't see why I should be bound at all to any agreement with $TENANT outside of letting their current lease expire. I don't buy that there is any moral obligation in the first place but to extend that to third parties seems a bit silly.
- raldi 11y ago
  I don't buy it either, but the majority of SF voters do.
Agustus 11y ago
This was tried during the 1600's and 1700's, there were 99 year leases on land between the gentry and the yeomen. When costs increased, the gentry were unable to adjust the price on their leases and paved the way for social upheavals.
- pm215 11y ago
  99 year (or longer) leases are still very common in the UK for apartments ["leasehold property"]. There are issues with leasehold, but "I can only sell my landlord's interest to somebody else willing to be a landlord" isn't really one of them -- it's just an asset with an income stream and a certain amount of upkeep costs and responsibilities, and there are buyers out there who'll take them on and a generally accepted mechanism for valuing them.
  - pc86 11y ago
    And the pool of buyers who wants to deal with that is demonstrably much smaller than the pool of buyers who simply want to live in the damn house. If someone wants to sell their personal property I see no legitimate reason why there should be restrictions on who can buy it.
refurb 11y ago
That sounds like a great way to ensure no one ever rents an apartment to anyone.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

by raldi 11y ago

pc86 11y ago

I don't see the word "rent" anywhere in your linked article but maybe a synonym is there somewhere. Regardless, if you agree to rent $PROPERTY to $TENANT and I you want to sell me $PROPERTY, I don't see why I should be bound at all to any agreement with $TENANT outside of letting their current lease expire. I don't buy that there is any moral obligation in the first place but to extend that to third parties seems a bit silly.

raldi 11y ago
I don't buy it either, but the majority of SF voters do.

Agustus 11y ago

This was tried during the 1600's and 1700's, there were 99 year leases on land between the gentry and the yeomen. When costs increased, the gentry were unable to adjust the price on their leases and paved the way for social upheavals.

pm215 11y ago
99 year (or longer) leases are still very common in the UK for apartments ["leasehold property"]. There are issues with leasehold, but "I can only sell my landlord's interest to somebody else willing to be a landlord" isn't really one of them -- it's just an asset with an income stream and a certain amount of upkeep costs and responsibilities, and there are buyers out there who'll take them on and a generally accepted mechanism for valuing them.
- pc86 11y ago
  And the pool of buyers who wants to deal with that is demonstrably much smaller than the pool of buyers who simply want to live in the damn house. If someone wants to sell their personal property I see no legitimate reason why there should be restrictions on who can buy it.

refurb 11y ago

That sounds like a great way to ensure no one ever rents an apartment to anyone.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]