Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

headgasketidiot t1_jdhbfyc wrote

Reply to comment by DrPremium in The 'Airbnbust' proves the Wild West days of online vacation rentals are over by amhais

The constitution has the takings clause, which says the government can't take people's stuff without paying them for it. I say we take them and pay them for it, then operate them as social housing at cost to fund the program.

As for the morality, having thousands of empty homes while many are homeless is immoral. Right now, our tax dollars keep those houses empty. if a homeless person tried to stay in an otherwise empty house, armed agents of the state would show up and do any violence necessary to keep those houses empty.

−4

amhais OP t1_jdhvepp wrote

OMG dude grow up. Being a complete tankie is a bad look.

3

DrPremium t1_jdhntdb wrote

A bit of a glossing over of the founding principles of our democracy I have to say... but on the moral side, should 2nd home ownership be banned? I'm not saying problems don't exist, I just think you're knee-jerking a reaction to them. Very slippery slope when you start saying normal folks should just give up whatever 'excess' they have to those in need. Sounds a bit like a certain failed ideology we've seen in the last century...

2

headgasketidiot t1_jdhq5lz wrote

> Very slippery slope when you start saying normal folks should just give up whatever 'excess' they have to those in need. Sounds a bit like a certain failed ideology we've seen in the last century...

Christianity is a little older than the last century.

−1

DrPremium t1_jdkpro0 wrote

oh I must have missed the part of the bible where it said 'take other people's things by force

2

headgasketidiot t1_jdlz657 wrote

You said "normal folks should just give up whatever 'excess' they have to those in need. "

Here's a Bible page that says exactly that:

>But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?

Another

>Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.

That one seems pretty relevant to this discussion.

Here's one that says you should lend to the poor even if the debt jubilee is coming up, during which the state will cancel all debt:

>If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. >Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin

1

DrPremium t1_jdn60hs wrote

Am I blind or am I missing the “by force” part? Something tells me I’m not engaging with a rational actor… I’m backing off this ‘discussion’

1

headgasketidiot t1_jdn8e88 wrote

You're not blind. You just moved the goalposts. That's why i quoted your original comment.

0

ejjsjejsj t1_jdjcz0v wrote

>The constitution has the takings clause, which says the government can't take people's stuff without paying them for it.

And what part of the constitution would that be?

2

headgasketidiot t1_jdjg81p wrote

It's literally called "the takings clause" in legal scholarship.

1

ejjsjejsj t1_jdrlipk wrote

That clause says just compensation must be given

2

headgasketidiot t1_jdrn8at wrote

Yes it does. Are you saying that's different from what I said?

>Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I am proposing we take private property, aka second homes, for public use. That clause says we can't do that unless we provide just compensation. In other words, like I said, the government can't take people's stuff without paying them for it.

0