3 ms·

Single family homes that are privately owned are a strawman argument. Even if you rent your single family home, a renter only gets the keys to your building, i

by mjolk 13y ago

Single family homes that are privately owned are a strawman argument. Even if you rent your single family home, a renter only gets the keys to your building, is likely to only potentially damage the things within your four walls, and not in a position to easily break into other apartment units.

aetherson 13y ago
A few points: First, a "strawman" argument is when I attack a position you do not hold. I don't think I claimed anywhere that you were speaking to single-family homes -- I certainly didn't intend to. Second, I'm genuinely confused as to what line you're drawing -- you seem to think it's obvious -- between my rights as someone who lives near other people while renting, and someone who lives near other people while owning. On some level, my risk seems greater: if I were a renter, I could after all just move if my neighbors prove troublesome, while if I own, they can destroy the value of an asset I have even if I personally flee the scene. I agree with you that we can see some avenues of potential risk that apply only to people living in multi-tenant buildings (keys, etc). But this is what I mean about your point being under-argued: all you seem to be doing is listing some potential negative externalities. Everything has potential negative externalities. You could hit me with your car. You could create a fire in your home that would burn down city blocks. What seems to be missing is both: 1. Some kind of statement about those potentials becoming actuals. How much do the neighbors of AirBnB hosts ACTUALLY suffer? Are the stories of floating brothels etc rare exceptions, or commonplace? 2. Some kind of at least suggestion of where the line between actionable and non-actionable externalities lies. I do not mean to suggest that these are either easy requirements to satisfy, or that I'm trying to dismiss your argument. I'm just trying to move the conversation past the listing of possible negative externalities. I agree with you. They exist. But where do we go from there?

by mjolk 13y ago

aetherson 13y ago

A few points: First, a "strawman" argument is when I attack a position you do not hold. I don't think I claimed anywhere that you were speaking to single-family homes -- I certainly didn't intend to. Second, I'm genuinely confused as to what line you're drawing -- you seem to think it's obvious -- between my rights as someone who lives near other people while renting, and someone who lives near other people while owning. On some level, my risk seems greater: if I were a renter, I could after all just move if my neighbors prove troublesome, while if I own, they can destroy the value of an asset I have even if I personally flee the scene. I agree with you that we can see some avenues of potential risk that apply only to people living in multi-tenant buildings (keys, etc). But this is what I mean about your point being under-argued: all you seem to be doing is listing some potential negative externalities. Everything has potential negative externalities. You could hit me with your car. You could create a fire in your home that would burn down city blocks. What seems to be missing is both: 1. Some kind of statement about those potentials becoming actuals. How much do the neighbors of AirBnB hosts ACTUALLY suffer? Are the stories of floating brothels etc rare exceptions, or commonplace? 2. Some kind of at least suggestion of where the line between actionable and non-actionable externalities lies. I do not mean to suggest that these are either easy requirements to satisfy, or that I'm trying to dismiss your argument. I'm just trying to move the conversation past the listing of possible negative externalities. I agree with you. They exist. But where do we go from there?