4 ms·

I think I agree with you, and so I will not risk talking past each other. Let me just take this spot to point out that from a landlord's perspective renting ou

I think I agree with you, and so I will not risk talking past each other. Let me just take this spot to point out that from a landlord's perspective renting out two units at 100% is economically equivalent to renting out one unit at 200% while letting the other unit sits empty. However, it is strictly worse for society at large because of the artificial scarcity of a basic right.

landemva 4y ago
You had me until this "artificial scarcity of a basic right." Housing is not a natural right. Rights don't have limits (until they harm someone else), so something like speech can't be artificially scarce.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  That is a matter of ideology. The natural rights doctrine you're using to claim rights cannot have limits up to the right of someone else is mostly an artifact of Abrahamic religions and is not founded by much in the way of logic. There is no hard reason why socially adequate housing cannot be considered a right.
  - landemva 4y ago
    Post your address so we can all visit your pad and exercise our right to housing. Maybe there is also a right to a job at Google.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      That's not a hard argument, it's a soft argument. But generally these rights are backed by a responsibility to society in general as a collective.
      - landemva 4y ago
        I'm not part of your collective nor social contract. I do pay use taxes and fees for public goods such as roads. When did society get the responsibility to bail out the high-paid bankers who failed in 2008/9? Occupy wall street didn't think we should bail them out. Soft vs hard means what? More like a slippery slope until too big to fail bankers are rescued by the working class collective. Rights are endowed by our creator (higher power or whatever your words may be). Rights are not backed by a responsibility.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  What about clean drinking water? Or breathing air? Would you like Nestle to buy the rights to and bottle up all the available clean water in your area so that you can only buy it from them? If your response is "they're not natural rights either", then maybe it's a matter of semantics, because I consider housing rights on the same level as clean drinking water.
  - landemva 4y ago
    I support charities for these activities, not compulsory taxation by government. (And I wish people would comment rather than just downvote, as a discussion requires comments.)

landemva 4y ago

You had me until this "artificial scarcity of a basic right." Housing is not a natural right. Rights don't have limits (until they harm someone else), so something like speech can't be artificially scarce.

sudosysgen 4y ago
That is a matter of ideology. The natural rights doctrine you're using to claim rights cannot have limits up to the right of someone else is mostly an artifact of Abrahamic religions and is not founded by much in the way of logic. There is no hard reason why socially adequate housing cannot be considered a right.
- landemva 4y ago
  Post your address so we can all visit your pad and exercise our right to housing. Maybe there is also a right to a job at Google.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    That's not a hard argument, it's a soft argument. But generally these rights are backed by a responsibility to society in general as a collective.
    - landemva 4y ago
      I'm not part of your collective nor social contract. I do pay use taxes and fees for public goods such as roads. When did society get the responsibility to bail out the high-paid bankers who failed in 2008/9? Occupy wall street didn't think we should bail them out. Soft vs hard means what? More like a slippery slope until too big to fail bankers are rescued by the working class collective. Rights are endowed by our creator (higher power or whatever your words may be). Rights are not backed by a responsibility.
polygamous_bat 4y ago
What about clean drinking water? Or breathing air? Would you like Nestle to buy the rights to and bottle up all the available clean water in your area so that you can only buy it from them? If your response is "they're not natural rights either", then maybe it's a matter of semantics, because I consider housing rights on the same level as clean drinking water.
- landemva 4y ago
  I support charities for these activities, not compulsory taxation by government. (And I wish people would comment rather than just downvote, as a discussion requires comments.)