4 ms·

The entitlement argument is completely stupid, and really is only made from a perspective of entitlement. This is a matter of history and establishment. Back b

The entitlement argument is completely stupid, and really is only made from a perspective of entitlement. This is a matter of history and establishment. Back before the tech boom we see today, these people, who are now facing eviction, were just moving into their neighborhoods in the city. At this time, they did not face a choice of whether to rent or buy, as some stupid people on HN may be arguing. They only could afford to rent, and rent they did for decades. But these people didn't just park themselves in a bed at night, they established themselves in the neighborhood, building a vibrant community and culture. They opened businesses and started sports leagues and cultural preservation groups. They had kids here, who are now in the local schools. They gave the neighborhoods the very soul that is now so attractive to us tech workers. Fast-forward to present day, and they are facing challenges from all sides and are fighting to defend the roots that they've planted and communities they've worked hard to establish over the decades, it really has nothing to do with entitlement at all. This isn't a fight over whether someone gets to keep land, regardless of whether they own it or are renting, this is a fight to defend what they've worked for. Really I see the other side as the entitlement fight. We techies think we're entitled to the communities these people established only by paying higher rent. With this attitude, soon enough these very neighborhood we talk about will have no culture, and won't be as desirable. Really the only solution to this is to build more, so go yell at the people blocking new construction. Screaming entitlement is just making you look like a moron.

ahomescu1 13y ago
> This isn't a fight over whether someone gets to keep land, regardless of whether they own it or are renting, this is a fight to defend what they've worked for. This sounds ridiculous. If they (the renters) don't own it, the owner decides who lives there (that's the essence of property). Why should renters get a say in what happens to someone else's property?
- Jormundir 13y ago
  Well now we can have a more productive debate. The "essence of property" as you state it of having absolute authority of what an individual can do with their property doesn't exist legally -- zoning laws are the first example I can think of that refutes the claim or ideal. So there's already a legal basis for us as a society having say in what people do with their property. Quite frankly I think a lot of these laws are overstepping their bounds and encroaching on personal freedom. BUT I think there's a perfectly legitimate line to draw when it comes to using your property to provide housing for other people. When you decide to use your property to make money by renting it out to other people, you are essentially taking on a huge amount of power over their livelihood, and this cannot be stated lightly. So to me this is where we as individuals and as a society need to decide how to govern this territory in a way that's fair for both parties involved, as it is certainly not fair to widely restrict the amount of money someone can make from their property, and it is certainly detrimental to people and communities to upheave members from their homes and established roots. This is where striking a balance makes the most sense for the strength of the community, and the individual stakeholders, and will produce a strong society as a whole. To me, making the claim of absolute property rights is simply weak. I don't want to deride the most important point, as stated above, but absolute property rights don't really make logical sense to me either, as property is often a hugely restricting resource, and one completely established by precedence rather than contribution per se.

ahomescu1 13y ago

> This isn't a fight over whether someone gets to keep land, regardless of whether they own it or are renting, this is a fight to defend what they've worked for. This sounds ridiculous. If they (the renters) don't own it, the owner decides who lives there (that's the essence of property). Why should renters get a say in what happens to someone else's property?

Jormundir 13y ago
Well now we can have a more productive debate. The "essence of property" as you state it of having absolute authority of what an individual can do with their property doesn't exist legally -- zoning laws are the first example I can think of that refutes the claim or ideal. So there's already a legal basis for us as a society having say in what people do with their property. Quite frankly I think a lot of these laws are overstepping their bounds and encroaching on personal freedom. BUT I think there's a perfectly legitimate line to draw when it comes to using your property to provide housing for other people. When you decide to use your property to make money by renting it out to other people, you are essentially taking on a huge amount of power over their livelihood, and this cannot be stated lightly. So to me this is where we as individuals and as a society need to decide how to govern this territory in a way that's fair for both parties involved, as it is certainly not fair to widely restrict the amount of money someone can make from their property, and it is certainly detrimental to people and communities to upheave members from their homes and established roots. This is where striking a balance makes the most sense for the strength of the community, and the individual stakeholders, and will produce a strong society as a whole. To me, making the claim of absolute property rights is simply weak. I don't want to deride the most important point, as stated above, but absolute property rights don't really make logical sense to me either, as property is often a hugely restricting resource, and one completely established by precedence rather than contribution per se.