"The other way" described in the article looks like this: government insured private mortgages depending on racial build of the neighborhood, with the best insurance available only to white-only ones, and none available to ones when black people lived, so the government artificially lowered costs for white people buying in white neighborhoods and created a huge cost (and disincentive) to allow any non-white people to enter those neighborhoods, however rich and financially stable by themselves they might be.

How exactly this is an example that proves necessity of government regulating private rentals?

>we decided to amend the social contract to remedy this

Where in the social contract is this clause? I can't find it.

"It's in the social contract" is the ultimate weasel appeal. You're citing the authority of an imaginary document that, miraculously, contains whatever arbitrary moral edicts the person who invokes it happens to agree with.

Transactions should be voluntary. People should not be forced to do business against their will. Whoever "we" is in your post, I'm not part of it, because I have a moral objection to slavery (I.e. Involuntary labor).

Not that what AirBNB is doing constitutes involuntary labor; they're a private business and can set whatever terms they want for using their platform, in accordance with the principles I've outlined. I'm just saying that forcing homeowners to take in people they don't want to is sub-optimal and alienating for homeowners.

There's nothing imaginary about it. Discrimination in housing has been illegal since the 1970s.

Airbnb has found (accidentally) an unforeseen loophole in the law, where a practice that had only a marginal impact on the distribution of housing is on track to make a more significant impact. They know as well as anyone else that the law is going to catch up, unless they keep human nature from using Airbnb as a vector to re-segregate a big chunk of the housing market.

> Discrimination in housing has been illegal since the 1970s.

Certain types of discrimination are illegal since then. Others are not. That's the point being debated here.

This is one of my meany reasons for rejecting the concept of a social contract.