3 ms·

People don't have to be in favor in general. On the other hand, acting against socially good measures with sole purpose of profitting from them is evil. >Also

People don't have to be in favor in general. On the other hand, acting against socially good measures with sole purpose of profitting from them is evil. >Also even if it sounds good and social, you can also turn it on its head and realize why socialism breeds hopelessness: if you establish a rule that people have to live in properties with low value, nobody will have to hope to ever escape those conditions. This statement makes no sense. The reason why those properties have high worth has nothing to do with any intrinsic properties or conditions of them, and everything to do with scarcity of housing. You can do world's most unwalkable shoe and it will can the most expensive one if you're well known fashion designer.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
"everything to do with scarcity of housing" No - the initial premise here was that people should have to accept "affordable housing" in their neighborhood. You can build affordable housing elsewhere if scarcity is the problem. "On the other hand, acting against socially good measures with sole purpose of profitting from them is evil." What do you mean by "profitting from them"? Is it profitting if I pay more for my house so that my kids don't encounter drug dealers on their way to school? And that would then somehow be evil? In general it seems absolutely normal to want to protect the value of ones investment. Like if you pay a premium to have a view to the lake. Then it isn't "evil" if you want to prevent somebody to build a skyscraper between your house and the lake. It would be evil to sell somebody a plot of land with promise of view to the lake, and then build a skyscraper in front of their house to block the view. That would simply be fraud.