> "I have a right to do everything that's not actually illegal" is an attitude that directly results in all kinds of trivial things being banned.
You say that, like it's something surprising. A Priori, a person will do anything as long as it does not violate his own self imposed code of conduct.
That code of conduct need not be the same for everyone.
Laws, religion, moral codes are used to codify parts that are shared by a group of people.
In a civil state, the only part that you can force people to abide to, is that of the law in the general sense. (because they have a right to have a different religion, different moral doctorines etc..).
of course, people can self impose stricter rules on themselves but they can't impose rules stricter than the law on others.
> In this case, it's leading to cities trying to ban or restrict AirBNB
yeah, they can. I agree with you here. And I'm sure there is many valid reasons to do so.
My point is noise,in my opinion, is not one.
Inacceptable levels of noise should be banned regardless of the type of the rental contract.
for example, increased demand on housing making long term renting too expensive, is a valid one. Because it's a necessary result of airbnb.
My general point of view, is that one should ban / disadvantage X because of undesirable property Y, only if Y is an essential property/consequence of X.
I like this principal because it's general enough to be equivalent to "one shouldn't punish the innocent"
and prohibition of racism directly follows from it.