2 ms·

Well, he wants and he is willing to pay, it's not like he's demanding it for free. The residents and the town should price it accordingly so that both sides ben

Well, he wants and he is willing to pay, it's not like he's demanding it for free. The residents and the town should price it accordingly so that both sides benefit from the deal. Following your logic, going to the bakery to buy bread instead of making it myself is "entitled" and disregards the baker's quality of life since he'd be much more comfortable sleeping than waking up at 5am to start preparing the bread.

wcarron 4y ago
No, that was not my logic. You substituted your own. My argument is that under no circumstances is any entity 'required' to accomodate your desired market conditions. There are existing markets (i.e hotels) that towns/cities/whatevers provide. The mere desire from a consumer (or even massive group of them) does not oblige others to service that desire. And, the expectation that those desires are always met is the entitlement. Many markets have demand, but society prevents their legal existence. For example, organ trades. I'm sure a lot of alcoholics would love just being able to go get a new liver whenever they want or when theirs fails. However, the... issues that creates have been deemed unacceptable and therefore, it's not allowed (obviously, it still happens illegally). Some people want AirBnBs so they can have all the accoutrements of a home wherever they travel. Other people do not want such a market to exist, for a variety of reasons. I don't think that simply because an economic opportunity exists, it should be serviced or be allowed to be serviced. Obviously, advertisers want to increased the amount and effectiveness of their ads. FaceBook and Google would block out the sky and plaster it with ads if they could. Should they be allowed to?