That's a pretty simple regulatory change to cap HOA fees as a percentage of rent for affordable units though.
Obviously the developers will fight this, and the rich tenants will never exercise or swim near poor people, but conceptually it's easy enough to solve.
Nothing regulation related in SF is "simple". They've known about this issue for years. There are stories every year in the papers about low income individuals and families being squeezed by HOA fees in their "affordable" dwelling. It hasn't been changed. Remember - this is a city where a majority of the population voted to tax business hundreds of millions of dollars to combat homelessness while in the nearly the same breath has protested against building a temporary homeless shelter.
I just hope that in 5 years Captain Sisko is able to time travel back to SF ensure the Bell Riots take place. That's the only way homelessness will end in the Bay Area.
The free market will always distort regulation to suit the elites that profit from those distortions. Either through government or monopolistic corporations.
As long as private property is enforced through the threat of violence these problems are not tractable. The only solution to regulatory distortion is the complete abolition of capital.
In the case of healthcare, nationalized single-payer system gets far enough for something so critical to our existence without requiring a complete restructuring of the economy.
What does that have to do with anything? If anything it should be cheaper because the risk pool is much larger and the population density is much higher. A big part of Canada's healthcare cost is due to the huge geographic distribution of the population.
The truth is American elites systemically abuse poor people and feed them propaganda to make sure they don't question their terrible conditions. You're repeating that propaganda.
You've got some interesting points here, but it definitely reads more like conspiratorial thinking. What realistic difference is there between "The States" and the federal government? In the end you're still going to have a government enforcing these things, unless you depart radically from our current societal structure.
It sounds like you're just skeptical of a powerful centralized state, and it's coming out through the lens of historical American federation/republicanism. That isn't wrong, but it's as much a history of competing factions as it is an strong intellectual basis.
You're not the only one skeptical of a powerful, centralized state. Try reading Kropotkin or Luxemburg. You might find the ideas resonate with you. Those authors have a coherent ideological basis, and suggest paths to decentralized democracy that has been realized in various forms in recent history, but is radically different to the current American government.
> What realistic difference is there between "The States" and the federal government?
It's huge! The power to drive international trade and warfare, for starters! Also, the ability to create laws that don't reflect people in your area/community.
Also wrt this thread, states don't (generally) enforce searches at their borders, because states aren't fighting for domination with nation-states. States are only trying to control their geographic area.
Thank you for the references, I'll check them out.
It's cultural appropriation, and it's understandable you feel it's silly or offensive. Part of what makes it uncomfortable is the appropriation of culture for little more than vapid monetary gain. Like you said, it's not contributing to Americans' understanding of Italian culture---if anything it's hurting it with silly stereotypes.
Interestingly, if someone was criticizing the appropriation of an indigenous or asian culture, there is little chance it would be this highly upvoted on HN. I think this is a worthwhile lesson for the community.
> The point of socializing healthcare is making other people pay.
Yes. Especially you personally. Honestly, I don't even care about socialized healthcare as long as your tax rate is > 90%. Think of it as a "stupid libertarian tax".
I think most people will be in support of this measure, as hopefully it will force you to work so hard you don't have time to make inane internet comments.
So now not only do I have to spend several days on the phone each year with my insurance company, on top of figuring out which plan I want every new job, but I also need to watch a bunch of videos about kidney-replacement options for when I get in a car accident? And what heart attack care is available? And how many $1000 Ti screws they should put in my leg when I shatter it rock climbing? And somehow the collective time-wasting is going to be somehow cheaper for all of us?
I always wonder if you libertarians are doing a bit, because it sure seems like it.
You get some agent to do the heavy lifting in agreement with your parameters.
It’s a solution to the problem of “I continued to choose to live in an environment without health insurance, how do I handle the situation of not being in a position to negotiate?”
The agent I choose it the government, which I am proposing becomes the common agent of all Americans and advocates for all of us - since the expertise to act as a rational agent in this setting is unavailable to most citizens.
This extreme libretarianism stuff is pure BS, health care services in an emergency cannot exist as a free market.
Oh, I agree. But most Americans actively vote against that system.
As for those uninsured that just broke their ____ and are not in a position to start calling around, having pre-negotiated rates for the best pricing against all hospitals within a reasonable time’s transport would save a pile of cash. There’s no shortage of hospitals or excess capacity in the US.
Luck isn't involved as long as you can ensure your sampling noise is uncorrelated with the incoming wave, either by direct insertion of dither or characterization of environmental noise. Regardless, your point still stands, just a fun tidbit.
Nothing about abolishing capitalism implies that people will not be free. Arguably they could be more free. Not every socialist state needs to (or should) emulate the USSR.
Capitalism means free enterprise. It means being able to start a business. It means being able to compete with someone if you think you can do a better job. It means being able to choose from multiple options as a customer.
If it means something else to you, I'm sorry about that.
Everything about abolishing capitalism implies that people will be "less free". All capitalism means is ownership and voluntary exchange. Not allowing ownership or making exchange involuntary can _only_ be accomplished via coercion. I want to be very clear - this is not a matter of opinion but of tautology - capitalism requires freedom and freedom implies capitalism. In no way is this countered by comparing hypothetical systems with the USSR.
While I support the argument you are trying to make, I want to disagree slightly. Capitalism does not require freedom, and China is proof of that. But we have not seen freedom without capitalism and I do feel like the inverse relation is true: freedom requires capitalism.
(Feel free to replace capitalism with free enterprise if you don't like the term "capital".)
This is absolutely not true, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of socialist systems of government. There are even variants of socialism that embrace markets and competition, and almost all allow ownership of _personal_ means of production... That is, acquiring enough capital to run a personal business. What is not allowed is owning collective means of production, and the consequential rent-seeking and extraction of surplus value that business owners and landlords engage in.
Your comment is obviously propaganda, so I doubt this will help, but I strongly recommend reading some anarchist literature before making claims like that. The Conquest of Bread is a good starting point, but a bit outdated at this point.
You're confusing two topics. I'm not talking about "socialism", and I don't want to get into definitions of that word, and frankly I don't disagree with anything you've said at all regarding socialism. However, I wasn't talking about socialism. Rather, the OC said "abolishing capitalism". Abolishing capitalism _means the same thing_ as abolishing voluntary activity. In order words, limiting individual freedom. So there is no way to construct "abolishing capitalism" as to not meant "violent coercion".
None of this has anything to do with socialism or social programs or anything like that.
I've read plenty of anarchist literature, and studied economics extensively. I would, ironically, label myself something of an anarchist as well.
You've called my individual thoughts, constructed by myself alone, after careful and considerable study, propaganda. You're confusing my tautological deduction for ideology. That's fine, but golly does it make me sad. You're seeing what you want to see, my friend.
Edit: Also, none of this even makes a value judgement about the worthiness of abolishing capitalism or infringing on personal freedoms. Perhaps it's a worthwhile calculation? That's not an opinion I'm bringing up - but the word "capitalism" has a simple meaning: trade and property. Abolishing the ability of humans to own things or do certain categories of things _is exactly the definition of limiting freedom_. Socialist philosophers are not unaware of this and their entire philosophy is built upon the calculation of limited personal freedoms to enable potentially greater net happiness. This is not a controversial opinion, is my point.
Who's boots? What are you talking about? I didn't make a single value judgement in favor of one system or the other!
Be civil!
> abolishing capitalism in favour of socialism
> There are even variants of socialism that embrace markets and competition, and almost all allow ownership of _personal_ means of production...
Socialism and capitalism are not opposite ends of a yardstick. I am _not talking about socialism_. Limiting the ability to own property or trade _is the same thing_ as limiting freedom. One has literally limited the abilities of another. These are not opinions, but rather _pure deduction lead to a non-controversial point_. You can keep insulting me or you can engage. Have a good day!
Edit: Capitalism is a far more complex system than simple private ownership and trade. A critical feature is artificially reduced liability. Which goes beyond simple freedom and gets into practical considerations.
The fact that capital ownership in a cooperation does not expose an individual to legal liability for every action of that corporation is what let’s you have capital markets. A banker may loan a car dealership money with minimal concern beyond the risk of that money.
Without that protection the engine of capitalism breaks down even with private property rights. But, even simply applying strict liability to management would cause significant breakdowns. Picture the CEO of Five Guys going to prison if even a single person got food poisoning via negligence. Are they going to try to expand past a single burger joint?
PS: In practice this seems to work well. But, the ability to have legally enforceable contracts etc goes beyond simple trade. After all people would buy and sell used goods in socialist countries, but such trade did not make them capitalist countries.
It's a ton of work to start a union, one that can and has absolutely cost people their jobs, both historically and recently. It seems unlikely that it's just "lefty political signalling". Perhaps you can point to specific reasons why you think this is the case?
Furthermore, articles published on this topic indicate that their motivations included well-established and reasonable on-call hours, slightly more vacation days, and more collaborative decision making with management. All of those are real, tangible benefits that most of us would value and enjoy.
Obviously the developers will fight this, and the rich tenants will never exercise or swim near poor people, but conceptually it's easy enough to solve.