Hacker News Reader

Comment by CPLX | Hacker News Reader

But some of us like the status quo where drunken vacationing Europeans aren't allowed to rent out units in our residential apartment buildings.

Trying to just "disrupt" business without actually addressing and solving the complex issues that define the market is just lazy, and often illegal.

I'm pretty glad we have regulated capitalism. If you like the unregulated kind perhaps you should visit unregulated hotspots like northern Iraq or Somalia and see what Capitalism looks like in all its raw glory.

View on HN

Capitalism != Anarchy. Free markets still require laws addressing theft, property ownership, contract law, etc. Protectionism, however, simply rewards first comers. Disruption is the crux of a free market and should be embraced not lobbied against. Services that people dislike the most due to cost or service rendered (airlines, health insurance, telecom providers) are often the most regulated.

>Free markets still require laws addressing theft, property ownership, contract law, etc

It's funny you say that, because one of the features of AirBnB is that it has "disrupted" property ownership and contract law. A huge number of AirBnB properties are being sublet in direct violation of the terms of the tenancy that the tenant agreed with the landlord.

If you want a state that strictly enforces contracts between parties and property ownership rights then that's a state where AirBnB wouldn't exist.

A tenant subletting their apartment against the terms of their contract is obviously an issue and should be addressed between the actual property owner and the current lessee. However, lobbying for a blanket law against subletting if the actual property owner is OK with it is where protectionism comes into play.

To the extent that AirBnB hosts are violating their contract with the landlord, the state should be involved to enforce that. However if the host owns the property (or has contract permission to sublet) the state should not be involved. The state may also get involved is someone (guest or legitimate owner) is affecting their neighbors (excessive noise for example).

I can recognize that some AirBnB's are not legal even while arguing that as a whole the idea should be legal.

I think the legality of operating an AirBNB out of a residence that you own depends on the zoning ordinances that the property is in. (Renting out your farmhouse is probably ok; renting out your suburban or urban house or condo as a business proposition probably violates zoning ordinances and would require requesting a variance from your local governing council with appropriate public hearings and notifications to your neighbors.)

You are correct, but I disagree with those zoning rules in general. Specific zoning rules that prevent behavior that is significantly negative to the neighbors I'll allow, but most zoning is about keeping some other class (generally blacks or poor) out.

I was with you up until the intellectually dishonest and unnecessarily provocative remarks about Iraq and Somalia.

Provocative perhaps, but certainly not dishonest. The unregulated behavior of free market actors leads to oligarchy and violent organized crime syndicates. Every time.

The idea that capitalism as you recognize it can exist without serious regulation is obvious nonsense.

Somalia and Iraq are not examples of capitalism. That is the dishonesty in your previous statement.

Additionally, I never made a statement about capitalism without regulation. I believe strongly in useful regulations for capitalism.

> Somalia and Iraq are not examples of capitalism.

The Mises Institute, a major thinktank for free-market capitalism, has presented several articles in praise of how things are done in Somalia.

the delusions (or cultivated lies) of an ideologically extreme organization with a tenuous grasp of reality is not evidence that Somalia or Iraq are actually Capitalist economies.

There is a difference between oversight and control. Maintaining market inefficiencies to the detriment of consumers, simply for the sake of maintaining status quo and profit allocation to the establishment, goes beyond mere regulation.

Market regulation is by definition controlling what a market can and cannot do. The intent does not change the definition of the word.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com