Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mrmrmrj t1_j9hhqjk wrote

The only way to prevent gentrification is to forbid the poor from moving. That is prison.

13

[deleted] t1_j9jgz4v wrote

You make it out like the opposite of being forced to leave your neighborhood is being forced to stay in your neighborhood! It's a false dichotomy that you have committed here!

People want the ability to continue to live in their homes. And the ability to leave them. They want freedom.

Honestly, I can't believe that this intellectual dishonesty is present in a discussion on philosophy.

3

IlllIllIllIllIlllllI t1_j9jl6ju wrote

No one is forced to leave their community. I’m of course defining force as violent government aggression or threat thereof. But of course that’s precisely the force you WOULD need to prevent gentrification and force people from moving.

It’s morally abhorrent under virtually any philosophical framework.

1

[deleted] t1_j9jz3xx wrote

The force being used against the people is economic. It boils down to violent force because, in the end, the police will enforce it with violence. It might as well be a violent force.

3

Mparker15 t1_j9l3fav wrote

If you can no longer afford housing and are evicted the state will literally violently remove you. That is the end result of being priced out of your home.

1

mrmrmrj t1_j9jwol6 wrote

People have the freedom to change communities or they do not. I am saying that any attempt to finesse that fact is intellectually dishonest.

0

[deleted] t1_j9jyqyo wrote

Poor people want their community to improve without having to leave.

3

Mparker15 t1_j9l3jkv wrote

I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand

1

[deleted] t1_j9ljspw wrote

Like Zizek et al said, it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

We are so indoctrinated into capitalism that it's impossible to imagine any other way.

3

[deleted] t1_j9hyv1y wrote

[deleted]

−2

mrmrmrj t1_j9i2whp wrote

Indian reservations were created by the tyrants in this metaphor. The Indians did not choose the land or choose to be relocated. If you believe the Indians were treated poorly, then you cannot endorse any kind of forced or delineated property ownership. Any version will eventually end in <insert group here> reservations.

5

[deleted] t1_j9i4hx5 wrote

[deleted]

−1

mrmrmrj t1_j9jwdcw wrote

That is the rationale governments have used in the past but things have changed. What is to prevent a transgender reservation or a queer reservation or a single mom reservation?

1

failure_of_a_cow t1_j9hlpeo wrote

That's not true, we could also prevent the rich people from moving. Or we could section off areas and limit property ownership there to only people who belong to certain groups, perhaps certain income brackets. Or we could distribute housing by some method other than money, like a lottery or a beauty contest.

Whenever you say, "the only way..." you're running into dangerous territory.

−10

mrmrmrj t1_j9hutla wrote

Preventing anyone from moving is tyranny. Limiting property ownership to certain types of people is feudalism.

9

failure_of_a_cow t1_j9hzwgx wrote

Limiting property ownership to certain types of people is an all-ism. There is no economic or political system which does not do this, except perhaps anarchism. And even that depends on how it's implemented.

Limiting ownership is an inevitable result of a limited supply of property.

As for what tyranny is, that's another subject entirely.

0

HoboHash t1_j9hy7i8 wrote

Are you fucking proposing segeraration base on income?

3

failure_of_a_cow t1_j9hykai wrote

... What? I made no proposals, I said that the parent's logic was suspect. Frankly, poor.

1

[deleted] t1_j9i72m4 wrote

[deleted]

1

failure_of_a_cow t1_j9ia3av wrote

The case for gentrification is usually something in terms of economic development. The notion that we shouldn't halt development, halt progress, just because some people lose out. Other people gain from that same progress, and it advances both the neighborhood and society as a whole.

Some people also make property rights arguments in favor of gentrification, I mentioned this is another comment. Basically: our system rewards those who have the most money, and gentrification is simply one example of that. And this is good, because our system is good. Or at least better than all other options. (people who make this kind of argument never actually examine all other options)

3