All I hear is: The poor do not deserve to live anywhere desirable.
Trying to control prices directly has a track record of backfiring horribly, for reasons which are well understood by economists and uncontroversial.
This is demonstrably wrong.
Arson was involved in 7% of the fires and almost all in already abandoned buildings.
Fire burned the bronx because city budget cuts closed fire departments, reduced fire inspections and caused hydrants to not work. FDNY administration rigged the closures to not affect the neighborhoods they lived in.
The linked article directly refutes that claim three different ways.
It seems like the direct subsidy would have a less distorting effect on the market.
In fact, increasing the efficiency of the housing market is one of the best ways to increase the number of such places. The downside is such places will probably not be highly desirable parts of New York City.
EDIT: I've replied to a post that is undergoing on-going editing.
Following this line of thinking... is it "stealing" when schools are built, police stations are funded, or sanitation workers are paid to pick up trash? Starting from your point of view will likely not get far in a discussion that begins with "rent controls".
Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid this "theft" altogether and are in the NYC area, I know some nice places in Van Cortlandt Park where you can set up a log cabin and forget about taxes.
Allow me to test this theory (that merely living in a society gives consent to what would otherwise be theft) with an analogy: You have two routes to work, route A and route B. On route A it takes you 10 minutes to get to work but you are guaranteed to be mugged. On route B, it takes you 45 minutes to get to work and you won't get mugged.
If for whatever reason, perhaps you are running late and if you don't get to work on time you will be fired, you choose to take route A, are you consenting to be mugged? I certainly think not.
Really, your theory is not so much about consent as much as it is about the origins of rights. It sounds like you are a believer that rights originate from society (government), which is something I would disagree with.
> Judging by your username and posting history, you'd prefer to argue from nuts back to soup, rather than attempt to address valid concerns ("to rent stabilize, or not rent stabilize") within existing fungible frameworks (the rat's nest that is NYC politics).
Au contraire! Most people tend to handle these kind of political topics in a very utilitarian way; "which choice is most efficient?", or if you have a horse in the race, "which will net me the most benefit?".
While I agree that rent control is terrible economic policy, I want more people to approach this issue, and other political issues, in a principled manner. Rent control is theft, and it should be recognized as such.
I don't know where rights derive from, nor am I really interested in figuring that out in a discussion regarding rent control. I am a utilitarian, but I am also a firm believer that a completely free market can create inequality that is untenable in the long-term. Rent control in its current NYC might not be the answer, but, in general, housing programs ensure that all people in a relatively rich society (USA) have one of their basic needs met. People that don't have their basic needs met, whether those needs are met through their own action or through cooperation with others, tend to get violent.
To be equally extreme as you: please don't call the non-existent police when "the poors" storm your mansion due to their sub-par housing conditions, fifty years after the "theft" of rent control ends in your utopia.
Perhaps you have a very different idea of what mugging involves. Generally mugging means you are physically assaulted and then your property is forcibly taken from you.
>Take route A and get your employer to reimburse you. Or, find a new job that isn't going to fire you for taking route B. Or, pay someone else (the government) to get the "mugger" off of route A.
You didn't answer the question. In the scenario if the person takes route A they are guaranteed to be mugged. If they take route A, for whatever reason, are they consenting to be mugged?
>Your analogies belie reality
You've never taken a philosophy class or participated in any thought exercises involving moral dilemmas? The purpose of the analogy is not make a perfect model of the world. It is to test your theory on consent.
>They'll bitch and moan and play NIMBY games, but I don't see people revolting over these "thefts".
I don't know what a "NIMBY" game is and I'm not sure why you introduced the idea of revolting. Why bring up red herrings?
>I am also a firm believer that a completely free market can create inequality that is untenable in the long-term
It is unfortunate that you have a negative bias against free markets, but it is not surprising. Most people have false beliefs about what a "free market" is.
>please don't call the non-existent police when "the poors" storm your mansion due to their sub-par housing conditions, fifty years after the "theft" of rent control ends in your utopia.
It's clear that you don't know what my "utopia" is? Why would police be "non-existent"? I don't have a mansion, but I guess if it's a utopia I might as well have one. And as long as it is a utopia why would there be poor?
Why are you so occupied with the idea of violent revolt? Is this a non sequitur attempting to lead people to believe that a free market inevitably results in violence?
Property is a social construct. If humans decide these are the rules of property, then they are the rules of property. If your username is indicates your position, your beliefs are outside of the mainstream and your definition of property is outside of the mainstream. If you really want to have a conversation, describe where you stand. Otherwise, the answer is that theft is not necessarily involved in the transfer of wealth from A to B and you have not established that theft is involved in this context.
While I'm not aware of any polls on the subject I would guess that your concept of property is what is "outside of the mainstream."
>theft is not necessarily involved in the transfer of wealth from A to B and you have not established that theft is involved in this context
Your wording here seems to indicate that you have a contradiction in your own view of property. If the wealth was not A's to start with, then how could it be transferred away from A and to B? If A did not own the wealth in question, why is it in his possession? Where did A get the wealth from? What does it mean that it was "transferred" to B? Does B now own the wealth?
>If you really want to have a conversation, describe where you stand.
Rent control is theft. The marginal difference between the market rate and the rent control rate is being stolen from the property owner.
If you are talking about theft legally, then clearly there is no contradiction that a transfer of wealth from A to B can occur without it being theft and without it being whatever notion of consensual exchange you hold (which I'll take for granted is compatible with the incumbent system). Taxes are legal. Judgments calling for transfer of wealth from one to another are legal. I think surely you are not saying I am contradicting myself applying the legal system as it is, are you?
In the current system, rent control isn't theft because the marginal difference, by definition does not belong to the property owner. The system that enforces their property claim is the same system that defines what their claim is. Without that system, their claim is neither justified nor well defined.
So let's move away from legality and law. Your original question must have been one of morality, not law. My response is that I, personally, don't think property is moral or immoral because I do not take it as a priori. It is a human system. It has consequences. Its consequences are what can be judged on morality. On this count, I am heterodox. However, I understand how others think. Others, basically the entire history of property, actually, takes taxes levied and property rights regulated by the authority that justifies them as legitimate.
What notion of property do you have?
You are correct in your assumption. Perhaps I should be more explicit in that premise, as this seems to get lost on a lot of people. My fault.
>My response is that I, personally, don't think property is moral or immoral because I do not take it as a priori. It is a human system.
Surely, property in and of itself is not moral or immoral because we are talking about inanimate things. But the ownership of property, if you agree that property can be owned, does lead to questions of morality.
I am not sure I follow when you say property is a "human system... it has consequences". Surely all discussion of morality involve humans, correct? We certainly don't condemn lions as immoral for killing and eating antelope; or the mallard for reproducing forcibly with a less than willing female.
>What notion of property do you have?
I am of the belief that property is an essential element of liberty. If someone has the right to say what they want, or worship how they will, or have relationships with others how they see fit, or whatever they want that is not initiating violence against others, that right is valid as long as they have property to perform those rights on. They cannot go on someone else's property and be entitled to act however they want, without the owner's permission.
Now, just to be clear, I am not talking in the context of our current system, even though there are similarities. I am talking theoretically. This is important because I believe property rights pre-exist the state; that the right to own property is a natural, inalienable right. (In case there's any confusion when I say "right to own property" I do not mean that everyone is entitled to have property, but rather the rights which someone has as a property owner). So I would disagree with your statement that "property rights regulated by the authority that justifies them as legitimate," assuming the "authority" you refer to is the state.
With the view of a natural right to property, it is clear that theft is a "crime" even absent codified law. Furthermore, any codified law which sanctions theft in any form is a violation of natural rights, is immoral and is invalid.
>My personal views on property are most certainly fringe.
You are in good company. While many believe in the notion of natural rights, few hold an intellectually consistent view in applying what it would mean to respect natural rights today.
Edit: up vote for you for fostering an intelligent conversation and not resorting to ad hominem attacks.
I spoke about property intending to mean the notion of property, not the physical things that we call property, to clarify. In fact, I see entirely in the word property the notion of ownership, and likewise I only see the word property meaningful in the context of the notion of ownership. Without this, things are just things doing their thing.
So, I take it to be true that property is, not being an intrinsic attribute of things, to be a human system: A system of relationships between human beings. I believe it is possible to consider human relationships without morality coming into account, morality being a complex interaction between the nature of the world and the way humans act in it. I am being very wishy-washy, so I'll drop the point. I think it would be hard for me to clarify what I mean.
So, that leaves us with the notion of natural rights. I have to acknowledge that it is a useful notion. Liberalism has been a powerful force in the world for centuries and it rests on the idea of natural rights. That cannot be denied.
However, that is merely the idea of natural rights. I cannot take that as basic. What I take as truly fundamental is an almost tautological statement: What is fundamental is the way things go. When you go against the fundamentals, you get problems, resistance. Sometimes you can brute your way through it, but you always leave, by definition, problems in your wake. If there weren't problems, then it wouldn't have been contravening the fundamental. Sometimes, you can't even get a compromise.
To move from the abstract to the concrete, as an example the second law of thermodynamics is fundamental: That's the way things go, and you can't contravene it. Mallard ducks have violent mating rituals, human power is wasted trying to change that. It is beyond human power. It is duck fundamental. To take things as they are is fundamental.
When I observe humans and their societies, I can easily note that natural rights are violated. They are not fundamental. Natural rights have power in two ways: When humans exercise, respect, and enforce natural rights, they have power. When humans need to justify themselves to each other, they can use natural rights; this is another aspect of their power, the moral aspect.
When you take this way of thinking in a logical framework to its conclusion, you get critical theory. Critical theory is a fun tool. It digests all morality and rationality, breaking it down into power; power is premoral, prerational. Human power applied not to labor, or industry, but to social relations.
So, I have not much to say about ideologies (coherent systems of ideas) except as they are rendered material and thus embodied in the fundamental way of things. When I look at our society, I see conflict as intrinsic to its nature. I think these conflicts can be avoided, but to do so requires coming to grips with the reality of social relations and letting ideas be our subordinates instead of our masters.
You're willing to discard a lot of ideas to find a world that you think is good, which is a good thing. I am willing to discard all ideas and always work with a blank slate.
I kind of started rambling there, and I don't have a punchline or anything. I'll just leave it at that. It was a nice conversation.