3 ms·

> The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. Why is the fact that people without property were not giv

> The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. Why is the fact that people without property were not given the right to vote because they "didn't have a stake" as our nation was founded being lifted up as a good thing? It's such a bizarre thing to say that this ideology was a good one. The author can't really believe that renters have less a stake in the system as property owners?

munificent 8y ago
The author isn't talking about voting rights, they are talking about incentives. When you own property, you care more about the place where that property exists because what affects the surroundings directly affects the value of your possession. That incentivizes you to care about and invest in your neighborhood, community, state, and country. If you aren't tied to the place, it's easier to just jump ship and say "not my problem" when something goes awry. You have fewer incentives to put effort into long-term projects that improve the community since you're less likely to be there to reap the benefits. In other words, renters are less likely to plant trees, but a neighborhood with trees is better for us all over the long term.
- elicash 8y ago
  > The author isn't talking about voting rights, they are talking about incentives. They're talking about the ways in which non-property-owners were viewed at this country's founding, as not having a stake in the system. That argument was absolutely made in regards to voting rights and is the reason so many were denied this basic right. It's a very dangerous idea. But let's explore it. Renters have just as much a stake in the system as property-owners. They just have DIFFERENT stakes and incentives. Let's use your tree example. Maybe you are correct that renters are less likely to plant trees. That's not because they have less a stake in a system, but because the stakes for renters is different. For example, they may have to pay for the local government to plant the tree as taxpayers. Or maybe they don't like the way the tree looks. Or maybe they're worried wind will blow it over and onto their car. Or it obstructs a view. There's absolutely a stake in the system. True, they might oppose it because they may not get to ever enjoy the shade as it grows, if they move. Or maybe they want the rent to stay as low as possible. But that's still not an argument they have less of an interest -- just the opposite, it shows they have DIFFERENT interests.
User23 8y ago
Renters have less skin in the game than owners, and this drives a number of long term sub-optimal decisions.
- elicash 8y ago
  Sub-optimal decisions FOR WHO? Clearly not sub-optimal decisions for the renters or they wouldn't favor the different policy.
  - User23 8y ago
    For the community as a whole.
    - elicash 8y ago
      Are renters not part of the community, or are you saying they don't know what's in their self-interest? You haven't said a ton, but it seems like you're using "community" as code for home values. However, that might not at all in the best interest for many in the community. It's particularly of importance to home-owners. It might be to the detriment of renters.
      - User23 8y ago
        Renters have less incentive to care for the commons because it’s much easier to move on. That’s just one example, understanding the concept of skin in the game and consideration of how it applies in this context allows easily finding many more.
        elicash 8y ago
        You're just saying "the commons" instead of "the community" now. Are renters part of the commons? If so, what it means to care for the renters is part of what it means to care for the commons.
        8y ago

munificent 8y ago

The author isn't talking about voting rights, they are talking about incentives. When you own property, you care more about the place where that property exists because what affects the surroundings directly affects the value of your possession. That incentivizes you to care about and invest in your neighborhood, community, state, and country. If you aren't tied to the place, it's easier to just jump ship and say "not my problem" when something goes awry. You have fewer incentives to put effort into long-term projects that improve the community since you're less likely to be there to reap the benefits. In other words, renters are less likely to plant trees, but a neighborhood with trees is better for us all over the long term.

elicash 8y ago
> The author isn't talking about voting rights, they are talking about incentives. They're talking about the ways in which non-property-owners were viewed at this country's founding, as not having a stake in the system. That argument was absolutely made in regards to voting rights and is the reason so many were denied this basic right. It's a very dangerous idea. But let's explore it. Renters have just as much a stake in the system as property-owners. They just have DIFFERENT stakes and incentives. Let's use your tree example. Maybe you are correct that renters are less likely to plant trees. That's not because they have less a stake in a system, but because the stakes for renters is different. For example, they may have to pay for the local government to plant the tree as taxpayers. Or maybe they don't like the way the tree looks. Or maybe they're worried wind will blow it over and onto their car. Or it obstructs a view. There's absolutely a stake in the system. True, they might oppose it because they may not get to ever enjoy the shade as it grows, if they move. Or maybe they want the rent to stay as low as possible. But that's still not an argument they have less of an interest -- just the opposite, it shows they have DIFFERENT interests.

User23 8y ago

Renters have less skin in the game than owners, and this drives a number of long term sub-optimal decisions.

elicash 8y ago
Sub-optimal decisions FOR WHO? Clearly not sub-optimal decisions for the renters or they wouldn't favor the different policy.
- User23 8y ago
  For the community as a whole.
  - elicash 8y ago
    Are renters not part of the community, or are you saying they don't know what's in their self-interest? You haven't said a ton, but it seems like you're using "community" as code for home values. However, that might not at all in the best interest for many in the community. It's particularly of importance to home-owners. It might be to the detriment of renters.
    - User23 8y ago
      Renters have less incentive to care for the commons because it’s much easier to move on. That’s just one example, understanding the concept of skin in the game and consideration of how it applies in this context allows easily finding many more.
      - elicash 8y ago
        You're just saying "the commons" instead of "the community" now. Are renters part of the commons? If so, what it means to care for the renters is part of what it means to care for the commons.
        8y ago