5 ms·

Why should an investor not exercise agency to try and influence the outcome of their investment?

Gracana 4y ago
Because of the harm they cause to the people around them, as discussed in the comments here.
FpUser 4y ago
And why should I give a fuck about what investor wishes. In my opinion bar direct / illegal actions like throwing garbage in neighbour's property we should be left alone from interference.
flandish 4y ago
Oh I think they should attempt to register their opinion, but in the end, that’s as far as it can go - if we truly “care” about a human’s right to private enjoyment of their own “property.”
friend_and_foe 4y ago
Now rephrase that taking into account the fact that said investor enacting his will onto another person without their consent. If what I do with my property negatively affects your investment perhaps you should've taken that into account when conducting your risk analysis instead of throwing a fit and making your problems my problem.
- davidgay 4y ago
  So clearly, I can start a toxic chemicals factory in my basement, next to your house? (I'll move elsewhere of course) Or, absolute principles are rarely absolutely applicable.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ajkjk 4y ago
    I feel like your argument undermined itself? There is a clear argument against your neighbor having a toxic chemical factory that has nothing to do with investment values, such as "it makes my home an unsafe place to live". The whole point here is that the point of homes is to be homes, not investments.
  - friend_and_foe 4y ago
    There's a clear distinction here: risk to other people and their property. There's a reason people who make arguments for controlling other people's behavior have to come up with over the top, ridiculous scenarios with obvious answers. If you're trying to find an answer, find the principles and work from there and you'll find absolute principles are fine. There's no risk to you or your property if I decide to have a car with the hood up parked in my driveway.
    - noduerme 4y ago
      What if you have a different car with its hood up on your property every day? What if you're painting them and venting it out of your garage? Toxic chemicals is not a wild scenario, it's the logical next step. [edit] I'm somewhat surprised by the contention that merely stating this hypothetical is "emboldening" the investor class. Pardon: >> EMBOLDENING THE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTMENT OWNING CLASS whatever that means. I bring it up as it was my experience as a renter whose quality of life (not investment value) was substantially impacted when I lived next to people who were operating a quasi-legal home auto repair shop. I think it's unfair to assume that anyone asking where a line should be drawn on what someone can do on their property is carrying water for faceless, inhumane capitalist corporate investor-vampires, or whatever. And BTW, doing whatever you want on your property at the expense of the neighbors' quality of life or investment value? Kinda antisocial as well.
      - bryanlarsen 4y ago
        If toxic chemicals is the problem, legislate that.
      - flandish 4y ago
        We already have laws re environment - STOP EMBOLDENING THE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTMENT OWNING CLASS by pretending those laws don’t already exist. No example given isn’t already covered by a law that already exists. Except in the correlation to a “market” that this “investment” will be expected to perform on. It puts capital and profit over humans and is deplorable behavior.
      - 4y ago
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Ironically, people do this all the time - it's called a fire pit[1]. But people rarely complain because it's not "icky". [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wondering-what-bonfire-does-your-lungs-we-answer-your-burning-questions-180961493/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wondering-what...
    - thecosas 4y ago
      I know some people do outdoor burning in rural settings to address debris, etc. Curious now if there is a cleaner way to burn that debris other than an open fire.
      - AlexandrB 4y ago
        The article actually mentions that hotter fires are (generally) cleaner, so adding oxygen/air would improve things.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  Sure but they're also enacting their will on someone through a social construct (the legal system) designed by society to enact the popular will on individuals. If you live next to someone concerned about their investment, perhaps you should consider what mechanisms exist to prevent you from using your property in a way that would affect their investment. This kind of argument can go on and on forever because there's no right answer. The homeowner can do what they want within the confines of the legal system on their property, and the investor can do what they want within the confines of the legal system to protect their investment.
  - flandish 4y ago
    The only “right” answer lies in the idea that one’s home should out prioritize another’s investment. Investment supports a class driven, divide building system. Homes support humans. One of the two above clearly, imho, has “right of way.”
    - renewiltord 4y ago
      For you. But for me, applying pressure (political or financial) to get my way without deleterious consequences to myself is the way to live. Why shouldn't I simply arrogate to myself the right to direct all of society's resources to my own comfort? The Veil of Ignorance is nonsensical. I can condition probabilities of outcomes on my current state and choose appropriate action. Why would I discard any power I have? That just transfers the balance of power to power of another sort that others have.
      - AlexandrB 4y ago
        The logical conclusion of this is a panopticon, where those with more power lord over those with less in all areas of life. Sounds great for some, I guess. Me, I like some freedom.
        renewiltord 4y ago
        Well, the problem with building such weapons is that they may be pointed at you. Price that in and the best case is lots of rules for you and few rules for me. Which I like. Your desire for freedom is unlikely to be very deep. You'll give it up to impose rules on your neighbor, most likely.
- shanebellone 4y ago
  I mostly agree with this, but I'd slightly adjust the phrasing. No investor is owed a profit (unless contractually stipulated).
jjulius 4y ago
Because this is my home, not your investment. Invest in something else if people living their lives on their own property seems like too much of a risk to your "investment".
- chasd00 4y ago
  my property my rules is a slippery slope. For example, many cities require you to purchase a permit to have a garage sale because neighbors don't want you running a flea market out of your yard.
kaesar14 4y ago
This is how we got to a housing crisis.
Nifty3929 4y ago
They should - and they should fail. It should not surprise us that people try to use the force of government to achieve their personal goals. But we should be mad at ourselves for voting for politicians and legislators that allow the government to wield this power in the first place.
jonfw 4y ago
I'd expect them to consider the implications of their actions towards others before exercising their agency. Nobody is excused from ethics just because money is at stake

Because of the harm they cause to the people around them, as discussed in the comments here.

And why should I give a fuck about what investor wishes. In my opinion bar direct / illegal actions like throwing garbage in neighbour's property we should be left alone from interference.

flandish 4y ago

Oh I think they should attempt to register their opinion, but in the end, that’s as far as it can go - if we truly “care” about a human’s right to private enjoyment of their own “property.”

friend_and_foe 4y ago

Now rephrase that taking into account the fact that said investor enacting his will onto another person without their consent. If what I do with my property negatively affects your investment perhaps you should've taken that into account when conducting your risk analysis instead of throwing a fit and making your problems my problem.

davidgay 4y ago
So clearly, I can start a toxic chemicals factory in my basement, next to your house? (I'll move elsewhere of course) Or, absolute principles are rarely absolutely applicable.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ajkjk 4y ago
  I feel like your argument undermined itself? There is a clear argument against your neighbor having a toxic chemical factory that has nothing to do with investment values, such as "it makes my home an unsafe place to live". The whole point here is that the point of homes is to be homes, not investments.
- friend_and_foe 4y ago
  There's a clear distinction here: risk to other people and their property. There's a reason people who make arguments for controlling other people's behavior have to come up with over the top, ridiculous scenarios with obvious answers. If you're trying to find an answer, find the principles and work from there and you'll find absolute principles are fine. There's no risk to you or your property if I decide to have a car with the hood up parked in my driveway.
  - noduerme 4y ago
    What if you have a different car with its hood up on your property every day? What if you're painting them and venting it out of your garage? Toxic chemicals is not a wild scenario, it's the logical next step. [edit] I'm somewhat surprised by the contention that merely stating this hypothetical is "emboldening" the investor class. Pardon: >> EMBOLDENING THE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTMENT OWNING CLASS whatever that means. I bring it up as it was my experience as a renter whose quality of life (not investment value) was substantially impacted when I lived next to people who were operating a quasi-legal home auto repair shop. I think it's unfair to assume that anyone asking where a line should be drawn on what someone can do on their property is carrying water for faceless, inhumane capitalist corporate investor-vampires, or whatever. And BTW, doing whatever you want on your property at the expense of the neighbors' quality of life or investment value? Kinda antisocial as well.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      If toxic chemicals is the problem, legislate that.
    - flandish 4y ago
      We already have laws re environment - STOP EMBOLDENING THE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTMENT OWNING CLASS by pretending those laws don’t already exist. No example given isn’t already covered by a law that already exists. Except in the correlation to a “market” that this “investment” will be expected to perform on. It puts capital and profit over humans and is deplorable behavior.
    - 4y ago
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Ironically, people do this all the time - it's called a fire pit[1]. But people rarely complain because it's not "icky". [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wondering-what-bonfire-does-your-lungs-we-answer-your-burning-questions-180961493/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wondering-what...
  - thecosas 4y ago
    I know some people do outdoor burning in rural settings to address debris, etc. Curious now if there is a cleaner way to burn that debris other than an open fire.
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      The article actually mentions that hotter fires are (generally) cleaner, so adding oxygen/air would improve things.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
Sure but they're also enacting their will on someone through a social construct (the legal system) designed by society to enact the popular will on individuals. If you live next to someone concerned about their investment, perhaps you should consider what mechanisms exist to prevent you from using your property in a way that would affect their investment. This kind of argument can go on and on forever because there's no right answer. The homeowner can do what they want within the confines of the legal system on their property, and the investor can do what they want within the confines of the legal system to protect their investment.
- flandish 4y ago
  The only “right” answer lies in the idea that one’s home should out prioritize another’s investment. Investment supports a class driven, divide building system. Homes support humans. One of the two above clearly, imho, has “right of way.”
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    For you. But for me, applying pressure (political or financial) to get my way without deleterious consequences to myself is the way to live. Why shouldn't I simply arrogate to myself the right to direct all of society's resources to my own comfort? The Veil of Ignorance is nonsensical. I can condition probabilities of outcomes on my current state and choose appropriate action. Why would I discard any power I have? That just transfers the balance of power to power of another sort that others have.
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      The logical conclusion of this is a panopticon, where those with more power lord over those with less in all areas of life. Sounds great for some, I guess. Me, I like some freedom.
      - renewiltord 4y ago
        Well, the problem with building such weapons is that they may be pointed at you. Price that in and the best case is lots of rules for you and few rules for me. Which I like. Your desire for freedom is unlikely to be very deep. You'll give it up to impose rules on your neighbor, most likely.
shanebellone 4y ago
I mostly agree with this, but I'd slightly adjust the phrasing. No investor is owed a profit (unless contractually stipulated).

jjulius 4y ago

Because this is my home, not your investment. Invest in something else if people living their lives on their own property seems like too much of a risk to your "investment".

chasd00 4y ago
my property my rules is a slippery slope. For example, many cities require you to purchase a permit to have a garage sale because neighbors don't want you running a flea market out of your yard.

kaesar14 4y ago

This is how we got to a housing crisis.

Nifty3929 4y ago

They should - and they should fail. It should not surprise us that people try to use the force of government to achieve their personal goals. But we should be mad at ourselves for voting for politicians and legislators that allow the government to wield this power in the first place.

jonfw 4y ago

I'd expect them to consider the implications of their actions towards others before exercising their agency. Nobody is excused from ethics just because money is at stake