Hacker News Reader

Comment by stolen_biscuit | Hacker News Reader

The Castle is honestly required viewing if you're Australian. Amazing movie

I'm hesitant to declare anything "the best", but The Castle is certainly guaranteed a spot in the top 10 Aussie films ever made. Unfortunately I live overseas these days and can't find it to stream anywhere. Might have to get someone to send me a DVD with some Tim Tams.

You can put that movie straight in the pool room.

Also worth watching if you're married to one, as I used to be! One of my ex's favorites and therefore the source of many quips I would otherwise have failed to understand.

To me it's a pretty good example example of the flaws of private property. A single person can block infrastructure which would have benefited millions for generations.

That is fine until it is your house in question

Pay me 3x the market price of the house, and I'm going to consider it!

Tell him he's dreamin'

You perceive a person being able to fight back through the courts to prevent their home and neighbourhood from being forcibly bought and demolished a bad thing?

Yes. I think that its most of the reason why major cities just can't build proper infrastructure. Because it's virtually impossible to get the space for it. Yes moving house is a major annoyance and the government should compensate you for that (some % over market rate). But the annoyance the entire state suffers for decades if the infrastructure isn't built is many orders of magnitude greater.

A single person shouldn't be able to block an airport that will serve millions. I get HN is very supportive of private property above all else, but not everyone thinks the individual comes before the millions of others involved.

Interesting perspective.

By this logic it seems, there should be no individual rights whatsoever. Whatever is deemed by the State good for the many is therefore what shall happen. Am I reading this correctly?

US city planning history is replete with entire living neighborhoods getting bulldozed for highways and shopping malls, and the cities never recover their vibrancy.

If property rights were viewed as immutable as geography, cities would just have to make do. Either buy the owners out at the price they are willing to sell, or find other solutions. The idea of a private owner "blocking" something would never arise.

If property rights were viewed as immutable it would be aboriginal land.

Fair point.

Most people would agree with you. That's why pretty much every government has the ability to engage in eminent domain or compulsory purchase to take private property for the "greater good."

So, whatever is responsible for the lack of proper infrastructure, your explanation isn't correct.

> "A single person shouldn't be able to block an airport that will serve millions."

So how many people should be able to block an airport extension? a hundred people, ten thousand people?

What you're arguing is the classic of the trolley dilemma [1], the individual vs the many. Should you harm 1 person to save 1 million. The difference here is that you're not killing the individual, you're demolishing their home, and you're not saving 1 million people, you're making travel a little more convenient.

[1] https://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-ki...

How can the person you're replying to answer the question about how many people should be able to block it? If we look at the consequences (as I am inclined to do), then it's going to depend on the specifics. If the airport is not going to bring a tangible benefit, then it doesn't matter if it's one person or ten thousand blocking it. On the other hand (putting it very roughly), if it brings great benefit, then we can estimate those benefits and mitigate the harms to those forced to sell by compensating them well for it. If the compensation to those displaced outweighs the benefit, then there's your number regarding how many should be able to block it.

As for the trolley dilemma, it's a great thought experiment precisely because people's answers and their reasons for their answers differ. I'm not sure therefore of its relevance here. Presumably the person you're responding to can just be consistent in their response to both the question about airports and the trolley dilemma.

> "What you're arguing is the classic of the trolley dilemma [1], the individual vs the many. Should you harm 1 person to save 1 million."

Of course if that's genuinely the situation, it's hard to argue that the needs of the many shouldn't be paramount. But in the case of airport expansion, it's rarely that simple!

A bigger airport isn't necessarily a public good. If it's close to urban areas it's often a net detriment to the public good, inflicting more noise and pollution on millions of people. The drive to expand really comes from the airport operator's desire to increase flight numbers and profits.

Well, we have information on what it looks like when governments seize someone’s land and destroy their house and their life and sometimes their livelihood in the name of Progress (and/or lining the pockets of someone involved with the project). Turns out it’s not actually a pretty picture, even in nations like the US which elevate property rights (see eg Kelo vs New London).

“Society” can be quite cruel and inhumane to individuals, who need strong rights to protect themselves — including property rights.

Yes it's an example of progress vs tradition and your point is one side of that balance. The whole movie is a very clear allegory to Aboriginal land rights. "It's Mabo" to quote the main protagonist defending his families right to their home full of tradition.

The airports are private owned so your argument goes either way with the CEO/investors deciding to demolish whole suburbs and plonk an airport with all its detrimental effects on human health in the middle of a city. Crazy how a single/few individuals can do that.

I'm Australian and I would never recommend it. It's average, like most fiction that comes from Australia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com