Hacker News Reader

Comment by djrobstep | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com