I had another reply very much like this, but it looks like it was deleted for some reason. This was my response. It seems applicable to your comment.

It's not a non-sequitur, I spelled out why that applies to the issue. I was clear on this point, I don't know how you could have possibly missed it. And merely participating does not make them willing.

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)

You're suggesting that some people seem willing, just because they know no alternative? Sure. I'll grant there are some of those too.

Regardless of indoctrination though, an enthusiastic defender of property rights is still an enthusiastic defender of property rights. And there are a lot of people like this. And so many of those are poor.

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.

Gosh. It's like alternatives to forbidding people from moving already exist.

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

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.

That's an interesting idea... it raises some new questions though. Usually, we condemn conquest as something that one person (or group) inflicts on another. Without their consent.

Money, and our economic system in general, could probably be characterized the same way for some people, but an awful lot of people who are financially conquered are willing participants in our economy and monetary system. They like money too, they just don't have enough of it. That's not really the same as an invasion.

> Any other perspectives?

Well the two that we're discussing here are money and birthright. I doubt that this question has an answer though, it probably has many.