4 ms·

You might be subconsciously picking up on the fact that it's actually really creepy to build an apartment in a building you don't own.

samhw 5y ago
I suspect the artist comes from the r/antiwork fringe, who would say it's equally creepy to build an apartment in a building you do own. (I don't know how I feel about all that, really. I don't regard myself as a capitalist drone who thinks that someone like Elon Musk deserves to be richer than a heart surgeon. Jeff Bezos maybe, but, well, suffice it to say I understand the market is not perfect. But I also can't bring myself to think that it's more entitled - in the character-trait sense - to claim ownership to something I built myself, than to claim ownership to the fruit of other people's work, which latter claim is pretty much what the r/antiwork crowd are making. It's a messy argument to say the least...)
jrm4 5y ago
Someone owning a space that they will never ever set eyes on, that someone else could make use of without disrupting -- or even notifying -- anyone else, especially perhaps the "owner," certainly calls into question the entire concept of "owning a space."
- samhw 5y ago
  If they were legally able to rent out that space, I'm pretty sure they would. So I don't think it "calls into question the concept of owning a space", so much as it calls into question the wisdom of legislating a 'minimum quality' for dwellings. Specifically, it should force us to ask whether such laws (a) drive up the quality of properties, or rather (b) merely make it impossible to rent a property in the price range someone might pay for this mall apartment. I can't see how any serious-minded person could ask "Is the entire concept of property a bad idea, because someone can't rent a dingy apartment in a Rhode Island mall?". Of course the answer to that question is 'no'.
  - jrm4 5y ago
    Not that "owning a space shouldn't exist," but we should clarify and question "owning a space," because we casually and colloquially believe/accept "property" incorrectly. Our minds just generally go to the 3 year old's conception of property, "Its mine and I can do whatever I want." But, of course, no. "Property" for grownups is a jumble of rights AND responsibilities. It's good to question those, especially when it gets to what might be absurdities, e.g. Ted Turner owning a literal U.S. state's worth of land.

samhw 5y ago

I suspect the artist comes from the r/antiwork fringe, who would say it's equally creepy to build an apartment in a building you do own. (I don't know how I feel about all that, really. I don't regard myself as a capitalist drone who thinks that someone like Elon Musk deserves to be richer than a heart surgeon. Jeff Bezos maybe, but, well, suffice it to say I understand the market is not perfect. But I also can't bring myself to think that it's more entitled - in the character-trait sense - to claim ownership to something I built myself, than to claim ownership to the fruit of other people's work, which latter claim is pretty much what the r/antiwork crowd are making. It's a messy argument to say the least...)

jrm4 5y ago

Someone owning a space that they will never ever set eyes on, that someone else could make use of without disrupting -- or even notifying -- anyone else, especially perhaps the "owner," certainly calls into question the entire concept of "owning a space."

samhw 5y ago
If they were legally able to rent out that space, I'm pretty sure they would. So I don't think it "calls into question the concept of owning a space", so much as it calls into question the wisdom of legislating a 'minimum quality' for dwellings. Specifically, it should force us to ask whether such laws (a) drive up the quality of properties, or rather (b) merely make it impossible to rent a property in the price range someone might pay for this mall apartment. I can't see how any serious-minded person could ask "Is the entire concept of property a bad idea, because someone can't rent a dingy apartment in a Rhode Island mall?". Of course the answer to that question is 'no'.
- jrm4 5y ago
  Not that "owning a space shouldn't exist," but we should clarify and question "owning a space," because we casually and colloquially believe/accept "property" incorrectly. Our minds just generally go to the 3 year old's conception of property, "Its mine and I can do whatever I want." But, of course, no. "Property" for grownups is a jumble of rights AND responsibilities. It's good to question those, especially when it gets to what might be absurdities, e.g. Ted Turner owning a literal U.S. state's worth of land.