3 ms·
The answer is quite clearly that it is immoral to allow those who can afford homes from being protectionist about their assets when it comes at the expense of t
by AbrahamParangi 4y ago
The answer is quite clearly that it is immoral to allow those who can afford homes from being protectionist about their assets when it comes at the expense of those who lack affordable housing.
The need for housing outweighs the desire to get a return on your investment.
- disgruntledphd2 4y agoUnfortunately, home owners vote at a higher rate, so this is unlikely to happen (even though it probably should).
- RestlessMind 4y agoWhy don't renters or homeless vote at a higher rate?
- RestlessMind 4y ago> quite clearly that it is immoral > The need for housing And who is the arbiter of this morality or the urgency of this need? I say it would be elections where everyone in that area gets a chance to vote and decide for themselves.