8 ms·

This is an example of ridiculous government overreach. Should fit right in for California.

by dgzl 7y ago

BlackRing 7y ago
Exactly my thought. This isn't about needs, it's about economic rights. If I can afford two homes and choose to buy them, I'm within my rights to do so. Attempting to limit the rights of people isn't going to go very well.
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  I think access to shelter is a human right. I think access to an empty house is not a human right. If your family sits down for dinner and one person gobbles up all the food before anyone else eats, were they within their rights? Will the rest of the family ever invite that person to dinner again? No. We implement these controls on consumption in all areas of life. "Limit 2" when there's a coupon, for example. "All you can eat" restaurants don't allow take home and sometimes charge you for what you do not actually eat. We must limit the wealthy's ability to consume all the goods so there are goods left over for people who need to live in them. How does this not make sense? Why do you think it's better that someone owns 2 houses leaving 1 without a home, than two families owning 2 homes (one each). Isn't that a better world?
  - magduf 7y ago
    No, because there's nothing requiring people to live in the Bay Area. They can live in other, cheaper locales. You do realize there's an entire continent out there, don't you? If lesser-paid people would just leave the area, leaving that area without service workers (or having to pay ridiculous wages for them, driving prices way up for the wealthy homeowners there), the problem will solve itself.
    - anon1m0us 7y ago
      That's not actually what happens though. Ask someone trying to staff a restaurant how easy it is to find employees. Basically the service industry just ... evaporates. I've seen it happen in areas with a lot of foreign ownership.
      - magduf 7y ago
        What are you getting at? Are you saying that restaurants won't pay their staff very high wages to entice them to commute for several hours, and that the restaurant will go out of business? How exactly is this a problem? Too bad for the restaurant owner, but he can re-open in a place where he can hire staff more easily. Why does the Bay Area need restaurants? If the wealthy homeowners there don't want any lowly restaurant staff living around them, then why should they have any restaurants?
  - dgzl 7y ago
    > I think access to shelter is a human right. Products and services can't be human rights.
    - qwsxyh 7y ago
      This is truly one of the most Hacker News comments I have ever seen, calling a home a product and service.
      - dgzl 7y ago
        I guess I'm flattered, but you understand the point, right? If you have 'rights' to a product or service (i.e. something that requires another person to work for you in order to satisfy) then you effectively have 'rights' to their labor and goods, also known as slavery.
        qwsxyh 7y ago
        Not sure why you would be flattered. Hacker News comments are just YouTube comments with right-libertarianism and a thesaurus in the mix.
        dgzl 7y ago
        That's simply not true.
brianpgordon 7y ago
It's drastic. I'm not taking a position either way because I don't know enough about the tradeoffs. But it's really bad out there, particularly here in SF; maybe worse than you realize. When mobs of zombies start shuffling out of the Pacific and swarming coastal cities, you call the National Guard and impose martial law, "government overreach" be damned. And when things reach this level of dysfunction in the housing market, it is appropriate to start rationally examining practices we've always taken for granted in the past like unfettered real estate investment.
- dgzl 7y ago
  It's my opinion that if the proposed resolution is to strip people of their rights, then the resolution isn't worth the brain power used to discuss it.
  - anon1m0us 7y ago
    Buying something is not a right. It's a privilege. You can't buy drugs. You can't buy lots of things. It's not "life, liberty, and the right to buy stuff." It's "the pursuit of happiness" which clearly is an inalienable right that is being taken from people. It's no different than a bully on the playground taking the ball from a weaker kid. They both have a right to play with that ball, right? The bullying force just comes from a bank account -- that's all. No, we shouldn't allow financial bullies to run rampant either.
    - chrisdhoover 7y ago
      Property rights are the foundation of the US. Calling it a privilege is a complete misunderstanding of history. We are not serfs subordinate to a lord. We are not comrades subordinate to a politburo. We are citizens. As it was written in its early form, we believe in life, liberty and property.
      - anon1m0us 7y ago
        You're fine then with one person owning all the property?

This is an example of ridiculous government overreach. Should fit right in for California.

by dgzl 7y ago

This is an example of ridiculous government overreach. Should fit right in for California.

Exactly my thought. This isn't about needs, it's about economic rights. If I can afford two homes and choose to buy them, I'm within my rights to do so. Attempting to limit the rights of people isn't going to go very well.

anon1m0us 7y ago
I think access to shelter is a human right. I think access to an empty house is not a human right. If your family sits down for dinner and one person gobbles up all the food before anyone else eats, were they within their rights? Will the rest of the family ever invite that person to dinner again? No. We implement these controls on consumption in all areas of life. "Limit 2" when there's a coupon, for example. "All you can eat" restaurants don't allow take home and sometimes charge you for what you do not actually eat. We must limit the wealthy's ability to consume all the goods so there are goods left over for people who need to live in them. How does this not make sense? Why do you think it's better that someone owns 2 houses leaving 1 without a home, than two families owning 2 homes (one each). Isn't that a better world?
- magduf 7y ago
  No, because there's nothing requiring people to live in the Bay Area. They can live in other, cheaper locales. You do realize there's an entire continent out there, don't you? If lesser-paid people would just leave the area, leaving that area without service workers (or having to pay ridiculous wages for them, driving prices way up for the wealthy homeowners there), the problem will solve itself.
  - anon1m0us 7y ago
    That's not actually what happens though. Ask someone trying to staff a restaurant how easy it is to find employees. Basically the service industry just ... evaporates. I've seen it happen in areas with a lot of foreign ownership.
    - magduf 7y ago
      What are you getting at? Are you saying that restaurants won't pay their staff very high wages to entice them to commute for several hours, and that the restaurant will go out of business? How exactly is this a problem? Too bad for the restaurant owner, but he can re-open in a place where he can hire staff more easily. Why does the Bay Area need restaurants? If the wealthy homeowners there don't want any lowly restaurant staff living around them, then why should they have any restaurants?
- dgzl 7y ago
  > I think access to shelter is a human right. Products and services can't be human rights.
  - qwsxyh 7y ago
    This is truly one of the most Hacker News comments I have ever seen, calling a home a product and service.
    - dgzl 7y ago
      I guess I'm flattered, but you understand the point, right? If you have 'rights' to a product or service (i.e. something that requires another person to work for you in order to satisfy) then you effectively have 'rights' to their labor and goods, also known as slavery.
      - qwsxyh 7y ago
        Not sure why you would be flattered. Hacker News comments are just YouTube comments with right-libertarianism and a thesaurus in the mix.
        dgzl 7y ago
        That's simply not true.

brianpgordon 7y ago

It's drastic. I'm not taking a position either way because I don't know enough about the tradeoffs. But it's really bad out there, particularly here in SF; maybe worse than you realize. When mobs of zombies start shuffling out of the Pacific and swarming coastal cities, you call the National Guard and impose martial law, "government overreach" be damned. And when things reach this level of dysfunction in the housing market, it is appropriate to start rationally examining practices we've always taken for granted in the past like unfettered real estate investment.

dgzl 7y ago
It's my opinion that if the proposed resolution is to strip people of their rights, then the resolution isn't worth the brain power used to discuss it.
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  Buying something is not a right. It's a privilege. You can't buy drugs. You can't buy lots of things. It's not "life, liberty, and the right to buy stuff." It's "the pursuit of happiness" which clearly is an inalienable right that is being taken from people. It's no different than a bully on the playground taking the ball from a weaker kid. They both have a right to play with that ball, right? The bullying force just comes from a bank account -- that's all. No, we shouldn't allow financial bullies to run rampant either.
  - chrisdhoover 7y ago
    Property rights are the foundation of the US. Calling it a privilege is a complete misunderstanding of history. We are not serfs subordinate to a lord. We are not comrades subordinate to a politburo. We are citizens. As it was written in its early form, we believe in life, liberty and property.
    - anon1m0us 7y ago
      You're fine then with one person owning all the property?