Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So let's go simple here:

Just because i've lived somewhere, means i get to live there as long as i want? So once someone's got theirs, nobody else gets a chance?

As I mentioned in another thread, i'm 100% not a fan of people having some magical right to continue to live somewhere just because they've lived in that place, or their parents have lived in that place, a while.

It's essentially "blood right", and I emphatically believe it's not a great way to decide who gets to live where.

Not that i'm a fan of just kicking people around continuously, mind you, but things that end up doing the above (like endless rent control), are not societal good to me.



What you are calling 'simple' is actually an absolutist position based on neoliberal principles that serve those with power and capital. That's far from the only way to think. By introducing terms like "Blood Right", you are also exaggerating to create a straw man.

Being part of a social fabric is a basic human need. In the past the strong would displace the week from their communities through violence. Now we do that through the law, which seems like a great improvement.

Nevertheless there is no getting around the harm that you do to someone when you displace them from their community and support networks. This is why the law is not as absolute as you and others with your viewpoint would like.

By all means let's consider by what means we can balance this against other important human needs, but I don't think it's reasonable to claim that the freedoms to deploy capital without restriction trumps the need of humans for stable community.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: