Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

The 3-step plan you just outlined is: (1) Identify a group of people with insurmountable, systemic advantages that you don't expect can be overcome. (2) Develop an adversarial relationship with them. (3) Assume you're going to get some wins from time to time.

You should reflect on that. There are a surprising number of problems in the approach you're going with there - both logical and strategic. Picking fights is actually a political tactic for preserving the status quo; it creates a force to oppose the change you want. If you don't like the status quo you should avoid taking adversarial stances. Like setting up hotlines to report people to the government; it rarely ends well.

View on HN

> If you don't like the status quo you should avoid taking adversarial stances.

This is ahistorical. And it’s essentially the argument which has always been used by defenders of the status quo to avoid taking responsibility for the defense as such. But worse, you’re conflating mere recognition of an extant adversarial relationship with initiating it in the first place. You’re arguing that it’s strategically superior to unilaterally concede not just tenants’ interests but any acknowledgment that there even are tenants’ interests.

It is fairly pro-historical, take the development of democracy as an institution - it depends on an understanding that we'd really all rather see ourselves on the same side and trying to get the best outcome for everyone. Compare that to communist revolutions where they overthrew the hated landlords, then everyone starved. It isn't a be-all and end all, sometimes the only option is to fight. And on the small scale I've had mostly good results by being friendly towards my landlords.

But I don't think real estate in New York is the place to draw that line. I suspect the regulation of the market is creating these toxic relations and it is making everyone worse off, except for a few lottery winners presumably.

> You’re arguing that it’s strategically superior to unilaterally concede not just tenants’ interests but any acknowledgment that there even are tenants’ interests.

I think it is implicitly obvious that the tenants have interests. What I'm saying is if I'm living in someone else's house and my interests don't align with there interests, plan A is to find a way to align our interests. Taking it as a given that our interests conflict then picking a fight, on the other hand, strikes me as dangerously stupid.

what about the capitalist revolutions where they started murderous authoritarian “helicopter rides” and burning people alive inside oil barrels and stuff, or generally just starving or mistreating the populace? funny how that always gets left out of the example, some of these killings likely range into the millions, many backed by US taxpayers.

“helicopter rides for leftists” is very much a meme for a reason, after all. And many of those that receive such rides or are burned alive in oil barrel are not, in fact, insurgents, they’re just ordinary citizens who might have spoken out against the regime etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Drum_killings

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Spain)

yes, “tu quoque”, but these things do happen after many social upheavals, the framing of capitalism as being a bulwark against authoritarian repression is fundamentally misplaced. Many of those capitalist upheavals do go on to oppress their populations too, whether acutely or chronically. The us has hundreds of thousands of people dying from lack of access to health care and general poverty-related deaths every year, our own ongoing holodomor.

Violence after a political upheaval is, in fact, rather orthogonal to what system it is rebelling against or who is in control afterwards. Like it’s not tu quoque, it’s just an irrelevant red herring. Plenty of people get murdered by authoritarian capitalist regimes after upheaval too. Because it’s social/political upheaval.

> The 3-step plan you just outlined

Speak for yourself.

> (1)...

Holy shit your fevered imagination came up with a bad plan. But they are your words, not mine. Your plan, not mine. You should reflect on that. There's nothing insurmountable about the fights I'm picking and that's the entire point.

> Picking fights is actually a political tactic for preserving the status quo

> If you don't like the status quo you should avoid taking adversarial stances

Oh, tell me about your plan for winning without picking a fight. I'll wait.

Fights are inherent to good political strategy, it's quite silly to suggest otherwise. Politics when people agree isn't politics, it's administration.

Strategy is about picking the correct fights or inducing your opponent to pick the wrong fights. Georgism and socialism and other causes that strike at the heart of the ownership issue are the wrong fights because the opposition is too entrenched. You will lose. If you win it will be by destroying the country, but realistically speaking, you will lose. If I wanted to be politically ineffective, I might join you in your cause, because in principle we agree, but I don't want to be ineffective.

Instead, I will continue to go after the tax and zoning laws. There is a lot of good to be done on that front. It's messy, dirty, non-utopian, and has no use for someone afraid of a fight -- but these are fights that can be won and that makes them infinitely better fights to pick.

> Oh, tell me about your plan for winning without picking a fight. I'll wait.

The obvious approach to me would be to put together a plan for how to implement a land value tax, then propose bringing it in in exchange for dropping some other property-based tax or removing rent control so that in the short term landlords get a slightly good deal. Maybe try to get it implemented in a few districts first to see what happens so it doesn't get scaled up if it turns out to be a bad idea; these things are tricky.

Then with luck that'll be enough because the unfair part of rents is dealt with. If it isn't, get some people like you together to figure out what upsets them and keep tweaking policies to line incentives up. There is probably a lot to do around construction that is not getting done because people keep trying to fight instead of turn comfortable living into an administrative matter.

> Fights are inherent to good political strategy

They aren't. That is how you get all the pointless grudges that go back centuries, never get resolved and don't let people get ahead. People end up with multi-generational conflicts over trivia or long-gone disputes that are wasteful and destructive. Great political leaders tend to be the people who hammer out compromises and balance different interests without letting things spill over into conflict. Great leaders period are the people who heal rifts and promote reconciliation and peace.

There are occasional political battles, but it is nearly always better when there is a space devoid of them. Compromise, tolerance and all those sort of concepts lead to better living standards. most people persue policies of destruction and end up much poorer for it. But they have enemies to blame so they feel good about having less than they could. I'd rather be live in a wealthy society myself.

> Politics when people agree isn't politics, it's administration.

I dunno, I still see you taking a position there where you seem to expect housing policy to be a fight and don't see a world where it can become just a quiet administrative matter. I continue to put it to you that this is a terrible approach to securing somewhere to live. Everyone getting a fair deal on somewhere to live should be a quiet administrative matter. As principles go, I don't think there is a lobby group that wants people to be homeless.

Housing is exactly the sort of thing where it really is better to de-escalate tensions and set up win-win situations. This is a situation where incentives can be bought into alignment. There is no need for conflict.

> ...the opposition is too entrenched. You will lose...

US government spending is 40% of GDP and has been steadily rising for around 100 years. The evidence that taxes are hard to bring in is thin; all that money is coming from somewhere.

There is a lot of room there to negotiate tax reform. Tax increases are probably a no-go, the burden is already high. But change is possible, and realigning incentives is an option.

> Georgism and socialism and other causes that strike at the heart of the ownership

Georgism isn't socialistic, it is a profoundly capitalistic policy. And it isn't striking at the heart of ownership; although it is meddling in the market. But far less invasively than the average policy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com