Hacker News Reader

Comment by jensus | Hacker News Reader

I believe the principle is that it is inherently bad that _anyone_ owns a second home.

Why stop there. Let’s also ban ownership of more socks than what is needed. Also computers, cars, food, pets, kids, hell, why not money itself.

Pay no attention to all those failed states that have already tried this - this time will be different!

You're purposely conflating necessities with luxuries to strengthen your argument. You don't die (directly) from a lack of computers, but you absolutely do die from a lack of housing and food.

Who draws the line between necessity and luxury? Who draws the line between enough and too much? Who could be so arrogant as to volunteer an opinion on this for all of society?

Further, your argument doesn’t hold water - food is a requirement, but does it have to be grass fed beef? Could I not make do with soylent green?

This way of thinking is a race to the bottom. It must be avoided at all costs.

Have you ever been on food stamps or WIC? The lines between luxury and necessity are already quite well defined by at least my humble midwestern state.

what makes a second home a luxury? What if my parents died and I inherit their house while I own one? Do I lose one, or have a grace period to sell one?

What if I own a family farm and want to build a new modern house on some of the property? Do I need to demolish the old one, sell it, be homeless to build a new one?

These all sound like great questions for lawyers to answer once we’ve established that housing is a human right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com