Hacker News Reader

Comment by Overtonwindow | Hacker News Reader

This has to be satire. No one can be this narrow minded. It sounds like this author wants the government to essentially own all of the land, and only those who can afford to (the rich) to actually do anything with it. What's valuable land? What is this tax actually for? I think this is satire and the author is trying to make a point about socialism or something, no one can be these inept at economics.

View on HN

I thought I'd open the article and see war as the answer. After all, if we just killed everyone looking for a place to live, then there'd no longer be a problem. It seems to be equally ethical.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

This is exactly the same system of ownership as now, and a type of tax that already exists in many countries, but at a higher rate. I'm not sure why this is so horrifying.

I'm also not sure what makes it so hard for people to see the obvious fact that landlording is morally unjustifiable. Ideology is a hell of a drug I guess.

I rent because I have no specialization in identifying property value, and I don't like gambling. I feel no regret in letting my landlord take on the additional risk of managing the property for a chance at higher returns.

I don't want to maintain a home or a yard, presently. Renting out apartments is perfectly moral and ethical when there are people like me around (that is, I have a choice and have chosen to rent over own). The risk is more of the "slum lord" sort, taking advantage of people without the choice due to whatever circumstances. It's a risk of immoral or unethical behavior, but it's not guaranteed. My landlords (the company and their local staff) are quick to do repairs, have reasonable rates for rent, and have done a good job in maintaining the building (vermin free, which is a feat for an old warehouse). They guarantee protection of the commons (the building's infrastructure, safety, etc.) that would be nearly impossible to coordinate amongst the 80 or so units (about 120-150 people).

Absolutely, renting is a lot more convenient in many ways. Most people only buy for investment/financial stability reasons. Once you remove the land speculation incentives, I think you'd find that more people would rent.

You're confusing me, you wrote:

  I'm also not sure what makes it so hard for people to see the
  obvious fact that landlording is morally unjustifiable.

Is it absolutely unjustifiable, or is it the risk of moral/ethical failure (slum lords and similar extortive behavior) that makes it riskier than you think is reasonable?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com