5 ms·

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 ne

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.
    - friend_and_foe 4y ago
      So legislate the next step then. "No dumping or releasing toxic chemicals" it's not that hard, and the fact that that's not what's legislated, but it's what is used as an excuse for totally different sets of rules tells me that's not the motivation here.
    - flandish 4y ago
      Regarding your edit: the ire comes from (at least in my reply) the idea that your logic or example is so shallow as to “by default” support the class of people who can afford to treat homes like investments. There are entire cohorts of people who cannot. Who own one home, barely, or are beholden to a landlord’s (sometimes corporate) whims. Saying “what if they leak oil from junk cars” - resolved via environment law already. “Noise complaint.” - resolved via law already. Too many cars, too much blight? - laws already. Every single example provided couches this as a potential harm to someone else’s investment, and strengthens the divide in class between those who can afford to “invest” and those who cannot and strive to simply exist. Yes, people DO worry about investment. I do. I own my home. My only home. It’s paid off, largely speaking. But it’s my home. I have NO desire or assumption that its value will go to my children or provide retirement income. Because it’s a home. And I look at my fellow working class neighbors in the same way. If someone complains my home needing paint (it does) will affect (effect? I always forget) their investment - I will happily let them paint my house or they can f off.
- 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).

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.
  - friend_and_foe 4y ago
    So legislate the next step then. "No dumping or releasing toxic chemicals" it's not that hard, and the fact that that's not what's legislated, but it's what is used as an excuse for totally different sets of rules tells me that's not the motivation here.
  - flandish 4y ago
    Regarding your edit: the ire comes from (at least in my reply) the idea that your logic or example is so shallow as to “by default” support the class of people who can afford to treat homes like investments. There are entire cohorts of people who cannot. Who own one home, barely, or are beholden to a landlord’s (sometimes corporate) whims. Saying “what if they leak oil from junk cars” - resolved via environment law already. “Noise complaint.” - resolved via law already. Too many cars, too much blight? - laws already. Every single example provided couches this as a potential harm to someone else’s investment, and strengthens the divide in class between those who can afford to “invest” and those who cannot and strive to simply exist. Yes, people DO worry about investment. I do. I own my home. My only home. It’s paid off, largely speaking. But it’s my home. I have NO desire or assumption that its value will go to my children or provide retirement income. Because it’s a home. And I look at my fellow working class neighbors in the same way. If someone complains my home needing paint (it does) will affect (effect? I always forget) their investment - I will happily let them paint my house or they can f off.
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).