3 ms·

If I appear to talk down to you, it's because by and large people who seriously believe that such an idea is theoretically (not to say even in practice) good (o

If I appear to talk down to you, it's because by and large people who seriously believe that such an idea is theoretically (not to say even in practice) good (or beneficial) are thinking at a child's level and not responsible for running a society. Fundamentally upending a system that has brought prosperity to generations of people because it has become marginally harder for some today -- that's mature and responsible? Everyone should just share? Let me guess, on some of the other discussions on HN you would be of the position that people should have the right to repair their mobile phones themselves, control what software runs on their computers, etc. etc? And yet, you would propose interfering with people's most fundamental desire to control and do what they want with the house they own? Someday, I'm sure you'll realize that it's more productive to work within and guide basic human nature, than to try to put rules down that everyone wants to break.

thomastjeffery 6y ago
> If I appear to talk down to you, it's because by and large people who seriously believe that such an idea is theoretically (not to say even in practice) good (or beneficial) are thinking at a child's level and not responsible for running a society. In other words, if you appear to be talking down to me, it is because you are. I got that. > Fundamentally upending a system that has brought prosperity to generations of people because it has become marginally harder for some today -- that's mature and responsible? Everyone should just share? "Fundamentally upending" is your categorization, not mine. What you call, "brought prosperity to generations of people" is what I call, "concentrated wealth into the hands of a tiny tiny fraction of society". That's not a thing I am proud of. I don't call the system that made that happen "mature" or "responsible". The reality of those people "not sharing" has devastating effects for millions of others. Four hundred men's "prosperity" is literally millions' poverty. > Let me guess, on some of the other discussions on HN you would be of the position that people should have the right to repair their mobile phones themselves, control what software runs on their computers, etc. etc? And yet, you would propose interfering with people's most fundamental desire to control and do what they want with the house they own? Yes. Abolishing rental contracts for housing in no way conflicts with those other things. In fact, abolishing rental housing contracts would put more people in a position to do what they want with the house they live in. You see, people predominately do not rent their computers. People in general don't pay half of their income for permission to rent someone else's computer because they can't afford to buy their own. If they did, they would fundamentally not be able to access the right to repair that computer or arbitrarily run whatever software they want on it. Can your ideologue brain handle it, or does it break too many rules? Someday you might learn that your current perspective isn't the ultimate best way of thinking ever. Or you won't. The latter is looking more likely at the moment.

thomastjeffery 6y ago

> If I appear to talk down to you, it's because by and large people who seriously believe that such an idea is theoretically (not to say even in practice) good (or beneficial) are thinking at a child's level and not responsible for running a society. In other words, if you appear to be talking down to me, it is because you are. I got that. > Fundamentally upending a system that has brought prosperity to generations of people because it has become marginally harder for some today -- that's mature and responsible? Everyone should just share? "Fundamentally upending" is your categorization, not mine. What you call, "brought prosperity to generations of people" is what I call, "concentrated wealth into the hands of a tiny tiny fraction of society". That's not a thing I am proud of. I don't call the system that made that happen "mature" or "responsible". The reality of those people "not sharing" has devastating effects for millions of others. Four hundred men's "prosperity" is literally millions' poverty. > Let me guess, on some of the other discussions on HN you would be of the position that people should have the right to repair their mobile phones themselves, control what software runs on their computers, etc. etc? And yet, you would propose interfering with people's most fundamental desire to control and do what they want with the house they own? Yes. Abolishing rental contracts for housing in no way conflicts with those other things. In fact, abolishing rental housing contracts would put more people in a position to do what they want with the house they live in. You see, people predominately do not rent their computers. People in general don't pay half of their income for permission to rent someone else's computer because they can't afford to buy their own. If they did, they would fundamentally not be able to access the right to repair that computer or arbitrarily run whatever software they want on it. Can your ideologue brain handle it, or does it break too many rules? Someday you might learn that your current perspective isn't the ultimate best way of thinking ever. Or you won't. The latter is looking more likely at the moment.