> You've said nothing of value and had no insight. No one's talking about full-on central planning. You've just uttered a strawman slogan for the unrestrained f

> You've said nothing of value and had no insight. No one's talking about full-on central planning. You've just uttered a strawman slogan for the unrestrained free market. The case in discussion is not a full-on central planning, just core socialist policies that often fail. It is legitimate to regard the excuses as just excuses. > But the unrestrained free market would objectively suck, which anyone with two brain cells who is not high on ideology can predict. This is not the case of the article, nor is suggested by the parent. The housing code or other technical regulations regarding housing have not been removed, thus jumping to ideologies and disparaging them is besides the point[1] and a fallacy. What was lifted was a very common policy solution for the housing problem and it happened that things improved in its absence. Wherever people have been victims of these policies it is natural people respond to supporters with these simple slogans. Those are 2 straw men there :D. [1] I recently went through the anarchist political movements of the 19th century and some believed the State is immoral because it is a manifestation of violent power. We live in times where people try to excuse the State's violence primacy with laws which are moral, and that is actually the worst. It reliefs them of the burden that is to take something from the other fellow men. Whenever somebody suggests regulating something about private property they should imagine a mobster coming for extortion money. Maybe the mobster is a really really good guy and we kind of can choose the mobster, but he is still a mobster. I find this moral weight important to keep us and the powers that be from being a bad mobster.