3 ms·
Maybe practical is the wrong word, but I think it would be politically untenable if applied to houses. And the only way to make it politically tenable would be
by thinkharderdev 3y ago
Maybe practical is the wrong word, but I think it would be politically untenable if applied to houses. And the only way to make it politically tenable would be to add so many exceptions and loopholes that it wouldn't substantially change anything. Like if you just excepted owner-occupied housing you would already have exempted most of the housing stock in the United States. And if you didn't except all the owner-occupied housing, what is the political message exactly? "We want to kick you out of your house or raise your property taxes so property developers can make more money!" Like I get intellectually why that may be desirable but it strikes me as a tough sell to the voting public.
- gwd 3y ago> Like if you just excepted owner-occupied housing you would already have exempted most of the housing stock in the United States. Because the purpose of this isn't really to get money out of owner-occupied housing, but out of industry; and in particular, as the top-level comment in this thread, to make "intellectual property" more rational. If Sony / Disney want to keep copyrights on those 30-year-old titles, they need to keep paying enough to prevent a team of enthusiasts from getting a big enough Kickstarter to buy them up and make them public domain.
- thinkharderdev 3y agoI think we agree. It would be interesting to see a system like this applied to specific domains like IP and patents.