upvote

points

by parineum8 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby gtowey8 hours ago|
next
[-]
I disagree. When you give people strong economic incentives to ignore morality, some people will. Not all, but enough to make a hash of things. In any population there will be some people who will do things they know are wrong just to get ahead.

For Airbnb landlords I'm sure the thought process goes like " I'm just one person so I can't be having enough of an impact to be a problem. And besides, I need the money." But then enough people pile on and in aggregate they ruin the local housing market. But nobody thinks that they themselves are culpable

reply
upvoteby twoodfin8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I’m struggling to understand the moral character of taxi service regulatory capture and monopolization.
reply
upvoteby tstenner6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Your taxi crashes because the driver skipped brake maintenance and his insurance doesn't reimburse you for your hospital costs because commercial transportation isn't covered. Sure would be nice to have some minimum requirements for taxis.
reply
upvoteby twoodfin5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If maintenance schedules and insurance regulations are “moral” issues, what isn’t?
reply
upvoteby lokar8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
People were (and mostly still are) very opposed to Airbnb rentals in their neighborhood.
reply
upvoteby aleph_minus_one8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
... but the customers of these Airbnb rentals are not. :-)
reply
upvoteby ajkjk8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
that's the point of the regulations...
reply
upvoteby iso16318 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
People whose houses are robbed are against robbery, people who rob houses are very much for it.
reply
upvoteby vlovich1237 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That’s a false analogy.

You have two parties who want to enter into a contract and a third party unrelated to the contract that doesn’t for whatever reason. Just based on contract law and common sense the unrelated party shouldn’t have standing. Now if there’s externalities to the contract that impact that unrelated party sure, but only insofar as to get those externalities addressed.

This is not the same as a robbery which involves no contract or a willing counterparty to the robbery.

reply
upvoteby lokar3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah, IME, if the guests of the rental acted exactly like locals, and the units were not removed from the local housing supply (not sure how that could be), or the local housing supply was in excess to the needs of the population (not sure where that is), it would be fine.
reply
upvoteby jquery8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
People support anti-pollution measures yet corporations still choose to pollute. Curious.
reply
upvoteby parineum7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
That's none of their business.

There are already laws in place against the kinds of behavior that neighbors are afraid will happen.

reply
upvoteby lokar3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Noise, litter, etc, "nuisance" laws are on the books, but mostly depend on people following them voluntarily. The local authorities don't have the time/staff to investigate and resolve them all the time.
reply
upvoteby BostonFern8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
That's interpreting a failure to fight to preserve ethics as an internal rejection when it could be explained by a lack of fighting spirit, either because the fight seems impossible or the given hill not worth dying on. Another interpretation would be a comfort-oriented, avoidant, and possibly cynical culture facing a power imbalance.
reply
upvoteby ajkjk8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
that can't be right. If 90% of people are anti-airbnb and the other 10% are pro-airbnb then the 10% just open all the airbnbs.
reply
upvoteby jquery8 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
This is certainly the most uncharitable way to think about it.

I see a prisoner’s dilemma where people often support regulations even if on an individual basis they would personally violate them, because they prefer living in a the less chaotic society. For example anti-dumping regulations… the expected value for any given individual is +EV, but when everyone is dumping, it’s a big -EV

reply
upvoteby jacquesm8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The perfect example is speed limits: everybody thinks they're good and yet they all seem to classify all other drivers into two categories: slowpokes and maniacs.

Nobody seems to be able to agree on what a responsible set of rules is around the speed of vehicles.

reply
upvoteby yuliyp7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That's because they are slowpokes and maniacs: In a decently flowing road, the majority of distinct cars you see are either moving significantly faster or slower than you (and the more extreme the difference the more likely you are to see them). Of cars that go at a similar speed to you, they approach you / you approach them more slowly so you'll see fewer of them.
reply
upvoteby ajkjk8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This is entirely made up? Most people are totally fine with speed limits being what they are and don't say anything about it.
reply
upvoteby JasonADrury6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
In the sense that they don't care what the sign says when it comes to their own driving? Sure.
reply
upvoteby jacquesm8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Oh, that explains the massive difference in speed limits from one country to another then, especially if they're next door neighbors.
reply