3 ms·
They are only "forced" if you believe they were originally entitled to live there at a certain price. Which, in a market economy, they were most certainly not.
by matchbok 8y ago
They are only "forced" if you believe they were originally entitled to live there at a certain price.
Which, in a market economy, they were most certainly not.
The moral argument around gentrification is a weak one. Gentrification has been happening since cities existed. At some point we need to accept that people should make sound financial decisions.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> They are only "forced" if you believe they were originally entitled to live there at a certain price. No, they are forced independently of that. Whether you view that as categorically wrong may be impacted on views of entitlement, but most of the suggestions I've seen about it being wrong are utilitarian, not categorical, and are thus not dependent on any system of entitlement.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- drb91 8y ago> They are only "forced" if you believe they were originally entitled to live there at a certain price. I’m not opposed to consumer protections here. And not all old things are good. Hell, the oldest human social institutions are arguably the worst. Do you have an argument for its morality?
- matchbok 8y agoI'm just saying the moving of people throughout cities and neighborhoods is a very natural thing. Someone no longer being able to afford things in their neighborhood is not inherently a bad thing. Responsibly adults should be able to manage their finances, move, and adjust. That's life.