undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjrm44y ago0 comments

Someone owning a space that they will never ever set eyes on, that someone else could make use of without disrupting -- or even notifying -- anyone else, especially perhaps the "owner," certainly calls into question the entire concept of "owning a space."

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

samhw4y ago· 1 in thread

If they were legally able to rent out that space, I'm pretty sure they would. So I don't think it "calls into question the concept of owning a space", so much as it calls into question the wisdom of legislating a 'minimum quality' for dwellings.

Specifically, it should force us to ask whether such laws (a) drive up the quality of properties, or rather (b) merely make it impossible to rent a property in the price range someone might pay for this mall apartment.

I can't see how any serious-minded person could ask "Is the entire concept of property a bad idea, because someone can't rent a dingy apartment in a Rhode Island mall?". Of course the answer to that question is 'no'.

jrm4OP4y ago

Not that "owning a space shouldn't exist," but we should clarify and question "owning a space," because we casually and colloquially believe/accept "property" incorrectly.

Our minds just generally go to the 3 year old's conception of property, "Its mine and I can do whatever I want."

But, of course, no. "Property" for grownups is a jumble of rights AND responsibilities.

It's good to question those, especially when it gets to what might be absurdities, e.g. Ted Turner owning a literal U.S. state's worth of land.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse