5 ms·

The land isn't owned collectively. It's owned by individuals. It seems strange to pass laws that say those individuals aren't allowed to sell to people that are

by harryh 9y ago

The land isn't owned collectively. It's owned by individuals. It seems strange to pass laws that say those individuals aren't allowed to sell to people that are willing to pay more money.

cylinder 9y ago
It only seems strange to you because you are probably American. Not everyone views land this individually. Nor does your approach make any sense. So you're against the government telling me I can't build a toxic waste dump on my land next to a school?
- rukittenme 9y ago
  > Maybe we should allow duplexes? >> What's next TOXIC WASTE DUMPS IN OUR KIDS BREAKFAST CEREAL? I'm not sure its possible to make a more dramatic statement.
  - ponyfleisch 9y ago
    this doesn't qualify as a case of reductio ad absurdum because the original argument was not "why don't we allow duplexes?" but "why does the collective have a say in this at all?" and the answer to that is "because of negative externalities"
  - FooHentai 9y ago
    Well, you've minimized the preceding argument while adding hyperbole to the responding argument. Of course we will agree with you that the straw man you have constructed is nonsense. The parent arguments are both far more reasonable.
- harryh 9y ago
  If you build your waste dump next to the school it creates negative externalities for the school. That's not the case for simply selling a piece of property to a willing buyer.
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    Buyers that don't actually live in the house and let it sit empty create a negative externality. Enough empty houses and you end up with empty neighborhoods. (This happens with domestic buyers too but the problem of huge empty investment properties seems to have come along with foreign investment?)
    - harryh 9y ago
      I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case here.
  - ponyfleisch 9y ago
    that creates negative externalities as well. they are just more subtle and people are not comfortable talking about them.
    - harryh 9y ago
      What are those?
      - idle_processor 9y ago
        Lower property values and potential influx of people from a different social class. The parent post may've meant to imply race.
        ponyfleisch 9y ago
        nope, not meant to imply race. cultural factors may play a role, of course. quality of life is better when you have more things in common with your surroundings. this is about preferences, not perceived superiority though. at the very least you'd want your kids to have a common language with their classmates though.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    " That's not the case for simply selling a piece of property to a willing buyer." Not quite. A wealthy citizen of a 3rd world country has used the fact that he can pollute and treat his staff like slaves - to make tons of money. He can then go to another country wherein surpluses are spread more evenly - buy up property - and start to dominate those people economically as well. One could make the cases that 'you cannot buy homes in our country unless you're a citizen of a country with similar rules regarding externalities like the environment, human rights' etc.. Because a lot of this money is coming from countries where all sorts of externalizations are made. Same thing for manufacturing: we 'stop hiring' in locale A and go to 'locale B' where we can pollute and have slaves. You can't really look at it solely from the context of locale A. For the same reason different nations have separate currencies, I think we need to separate domicile policy.
- Frondo 9y ago
  American here, and I'm all in on the idea that we live in a society and our choices and decisions are constrained, to some extent, by the people around us. The challenge for every generation and every society is to decide where to strike the balance between the individual and the group; it's never all one or the other, but always somewhere in between. And I like this "your land isn't actually yours to do with whatever you please, no limits" idea. Count me in.
aaron695 9y ago
It clear racism. Nothing more or less. Some people are better than others because they are born closer. Let the others burn because as part of the ultra rich (almost all NZ people) I want to be richer and this seems to be the best way.
- ponyfleisch 9y ago
  is it racism too if i lend money to my sister but not to a stranger on the streets?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - harryh 9y ago
    Your hypothetical is a personal choice. The other one is about legally limiting the personal choices of other people. This is a bad comparison.
    - ponyfleisch 9y ago
      so personal choices can't be racist? "foreigner" is not a race, and isolationist or protectionist policies are rarely based on perceived attributes of specific races.
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      Which country doesn’t positively descriminate for its citizens? That’s more or less the point of them..
      - ponyfleisch 9y ago
        one would think so. it is so weird to me that this is called racist and xenophobic by so many people. collective delusion happens all over the spectrum.
- legostormtroopr 9y ago
IncRnd 9y ago
Why does that seem strange? All laws are the group imposing on the individual - what they aren't allowed to say, what they can't do, what they have to do, who they need to hire, where they can dig, when they are allowed to build, etc. None of that is far from "who isn't allowed to buy."
- harryh 9y ago
  Ya, but most of those laws are about protecting the rights of individuals. I can't hit you because you have a right to bodily autonomy. What's being protected here?
  - michaelmrose 9y ago
    The overall well being of the society as a whole. Plenty of laws have causes as vague even if you don't realize it is so and you arguably can't build a functioning society without laws stemming from vague but significant causes.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    What is being protected is stated in the headline and first two sentences of the article. ... new policy designed to stop soaring house prices ... ... said the new plan was designed to stop rising house prices and will apply to non-residents.
    - harryh 9y ago
      You don't have a right to buy a house at a particular price. If someone else is willing to pay more the seller should have the opportunity to sell it to them. These laws privilege the desires of some buyers over both the desires of sellers and non-native buyers.
      - mantas 9y ago
        Not every sell is equal if you look at it like at social contract. A family buying a house is different from investors looking to park their money. It looks like ban will apply to non-residents rather than non-native. If you're non resident, why do you want to buy? Rent to check out the city, get residency which you'd need to live in a country anyway, then buy.
eecc 9y ago
Because we’re not trading figurines or pretty pebbles here, but homes, a Primary Necessity that we humans need for survival. Therefore we need to consider other subtleties to the act of trading such assets: how are my assets impinging on other assets nearby? Is it butt-ugly, does it fit the local decor, does it drive insane density in the neighborhood, does it drive prices displacing neighbors at an unsustainable pace, does it disrupt the local community, anonymizing neighborly relations, does it damage residents’ way of life? You see, to not about money alone
alexasmyths 9y ago
" It seems strange to pass laws that say those individuals aren't allowed to sell to people that are willing to pay more money." The sales of every good and service are regulated. Capital transfers are regulated. Taxes are based on different kinds of economic activity. It's not even remotely strange that non-citizens should get a different tax treatment or whatever for sizeable personal assets. I'm surprised that people are even allowed to do it in the first place. I have no expectations that I can just 'go to China or Geramny and buy some houses'.

by harryh 9y ago

The land isn't owned collectively. It's owned by individuals. It seems strange to pass laws that say those individuals aren't allowed to sell to people that are willing to pay more money.

cylinder 9y ago

It only seems strange to you because you are probably American. Not everyone views land this individually. Nor does your approach make any sense. So you're against the government telling me I can't build a toxic waste dump on my land next to a school?

rukittenme 9y ago
> Maybe we should allow duplexes? >> What's next TOXIC WASTE DUMPS IN OUR KIDS BREAKFAST CEREAL? I'm not sure its possible to make a more dramatic statement.
- ponyfleisch 9y ago
  this doesn't qualify as a case of reductio ad absurdum because the original argument was not "why don't we allow duplexes?" but "why does the collective have a say in this at all?" and the answer to that is "because of negative externalities"
- FooHentai 9y ago
  Well, you've minimized the preceding argument while adding hyperbole to the responding argument. Of course we will agree with you that the straw man you have constructed is nonsense. The parent arguments are both far more reasonable.
harryh 9y ago
If you build your waste dump next to the school it creates negative externalities for the school. That's not the case for simply selling a piece of property to a willing buyer.
- roywiggins 9y ago
  Buyers that don't actually live in the house and let it sit empty create a negative externality. Enough empty houses and you end up with empty neighborhoods. (This happens with domestic buyers too but the problem of huge empty investment properties seems to have come along with foreign investment?)
  - harryh 9y ago
    I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case here.
- ponyfleisch 9y ago
  that creates negative externalities as well. they are just more subtle and people are not comfortable talking about them.
  - harryh 9y ago
    What are those?
    - idle_processor 9y ago
      Lower property values and potential influx of people from a different social class. The parent post may've meant to imply race.
      - ponyfleisch 9y ago
        nope, not meant to imply race. cultural factors may play a role, of course. quality of life is better when you have more things in common with your surroundings. this is about preferences, not perceived superiority though. at the very least you'd want your kids to have a common language with their classmates though.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  " That's not the case for simply selling a piece of property to a willing buyer." Not quite. A wealthy citizen of a 3rd world country has used the fact that he can pollute and treat his staff like slaves - to make tons of money. He can then go to another country wherein surpluses are spread more evenly - buy up property - and start to dominate those people economically as well. One could make the cases that 'you cannot buy homes in our country unless you're a citizen of a country with similar rules regarding externalities like the environment, human rights' etc.. Because a lot of this money is coming from countries where all sorts of externalizations are made. Same thing for manufacturing: we 'stop hiring' in locale A and go to 'locale B' where we can pollute and have slaves. You can't really look at it solely from the context of locale A. For the same reason different nations have separate currencies, I think we need to separate domicile policy.
Frondo 9y ago
American here, and I'm all in on the idea that we live in a society and our choices and decisions are constrained, to some extent, by the people around us. The challenge for every generation and every society is to decide where to strike the balance between the individual and the group; it's never all one or the other, but always somewhere in between. And I like this "your land isn't actually yours to do with whatever you please, no limits" idea. Count me in.

aaron695 9y ago

It clear racism. Nothing more or less. Some people are better than others because they are born closer. Let the others burn because as part of the ultra rich (almost all NZ people) I want to be richer and this seems to be the best way.

ponyfleisch 9y ago
is it racism too if i lend money to my sister but not to a stranger on the streets?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- harryh 9y ago
  Your hypothetical is a personal choice. The other one is about legally limiting the personal choices of other people. This is a bad comparison.
  - ponyfleisch 9y ago
    so personal choices can't be racist? "foreigner" is not a race, and isolationist or protectionist policies are rarely based on perceived attributes of specific races.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    Which country doesn’t positively descriminate for its citizens? That’s more or less the point of them..
    - ponyfleisch 9y ago
      one would think so. it is so weird to me that this is called racist and xenophobic by so many people. collective delusion happens all over the spectrum.
legostormtroopr 9y ago

IncRnd 9y ago

Why does that seem strange? All laws are the group imposing on the individual - what they aren't allowed to say, what they can't do, what they have to do, who they need to hire, where they can dig, when they are allowed to build, etc. None of that is far from "who isn't allowed to buy."

harryh 9y ago
Ya, but most of those laws are about protecting the rights of individuals. I can't hit you because you have a right to bodily autonomy. What's being protected here?
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  The overall well being of the society as a whole. Plenty of laws have causes as vague even if you don't realize it is so and you arguably can't build a functioning society without laws stemming from vague but significant causes.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  What is being protected is stated in the headline and first two sentences of the article. ... new policy designed to stop soaring house prices ... ... said the new plan was designed to stop rising house prices and will apply to non-residents.
  - harryh 9y ago
    You don't have a right to buy a house at a particular price. If someone else is willing to pay more the seller should have the opportunity to sell it to them. These laws privilege the desires of some buyers over both the desires of sellers and non-native buyers.
    - mantas 9y ago
      Not every sell is equal if you look at it like at social contract. A family buying a house is different from investors looking to park their money. It looks like ban will apply to non-residents rather than non-native. If you're non resident, why do you want to buy? Rent to check out the city, get residency which you'd need to live in a country anyway, then buy.

eecc 9y ago

Because we’re not trading figurines or pretty pebbles here, but homes, a Primary Necessity that we humans need for survival. Therefore we need to consider other subtleties to the act of trading such assets: how are my assets impinging on other assets nearby? Is it butt-ugly, does it fit the local decor, does it drive insane density in the neighborhood, does it drive prices displacing neighbors at an unsustainable pace, does it disrupt the local community, anonymizing neighborly relations, does it damage residents’ way of life? You see, to not about money alone

alexasmyths 9y ago

" It seems strange to pass laws that say those individuals aren't allowed to sell to people that are willing to pay more money." The sales of every good and service are regulated. Capital transfers are regulated. Taxes are based on different kinds of economic activity. It's not even remotely strange that non-citizens should get a different tax treatment or whatever for sizeable personal assets. I'm surprised that people are even allowed to do it in the first place. I have no expectations that I can just 'go to China or Geramny and buy some houses'.