Hacker News Reader

Comment by gremlinsinc | Hacker News Reader

then they should enforce 1 child per family while they're at it. their kids have to live somewhere right? I live in a rural city in Utah that doesn't like building new homes yet it's a Mormon town where families are about 5 kids on average. if you want grandkids nearby then more homes need built. period.

View on HN

Or people whom the community has no room for can leave. I think this comes from an axiomatic disagreement about what being born/alive entitles a person to. My view is that we are all born owning nothing, and that everything we acquire we must acquire via consensual exchange.

According to that line of thinking, older generations should also stop receiving support from welfare and social security. Let them sell their houses and leave their communities if they can't afford to acquire the goods and services they need through consensual exchange.

And yet very few will accept elderly starving in the streets en masse because their pensions were gutted or went bankrupt. And so some measure of intergenerational agreement is necessary, where each generation provides for the next.

Given that people are paying into Social Security their entire life, I imagine they'd take some offense if you took it away and said it was because the young'uns were tired of paying for them. They might be of the opinion that they did in fact fund the investment for their retirement.

This comes about from job openings in places that don't have housing, so, basically a disagreement about where people should work and live, acted out on the housing and job markets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com