It only seems strange to you because you are probably American. Not everyone views land this individually. Nor does your approach make any sense. So you're against the government telling me I can't build a toxic waste dump on my land next to a school?

If you build your waste dump next to the school it creates negative externalities for the school. That's not the case for simply selling a piece of property to a willing buyer.

Buyers that don't actually live in the house and let it sit empty create a negative externality. Enough empty houses and you end up with empty neighborhoods.

(This happens with domestic buyers too but the problem of huge empty investment properties seems to have come along with foreign investment?)

I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case here.

" That's not the case for simply selling a piece of property to a willing buyer."

Not quite.

A wealthy citizen of a 3rd world country has used the fact that he can pollute and treat his staff like slaves - to make tons of money.

He can then go to another country wherein surpluses are spread more evenly - buy up property - and start to dominate those people economically as well.

One could make the cases that 'you cannot buy homes in our country unless you're a citizen of a country with similar rules regarding externalities like the environment, human rights' etc..

Because a lot of this money is coming from countries where all sorts of externalizations are made.

Same thing for manufacturing: we 'stop hiring' in locale A and go to 'locale B' where we can pollute and have slaves. You can't really look at it solely from the context of locale A.

For the same reason different nations have separate currencies, I think we need to separate domicile policy.

Nations have separate currencies because if they didn't some regions with experience inflationary monetary policies while others would experience deflationary ones. It would be impossible for central banks to do their jobs. You can see this in action in Europe with the Euro which was, and is, a bad idea.

How does this reason translate to housing policy?

" some regions with experience inflationary monetary policies while others would experience deflationary ones. "

Housing - and capital inflows/outflows - are primary drivers of inflation! (FYI I know housing is generally not included in inflation targets, but it really should be because it's where inflation can effectively be hidden).

Ergo - strongly related to the issue at hand.

Put simpler: those who come from countries with a different currency should not be able to buy residential property. :)

that creates negative externalities as well. they are just more subtle and people are not comfortable talking about them.

What are those?

Lower property values and potential influx of people from a different social class.

The parent post may've meant to imply race.

nope, not meant to imply race.

cultural factors may play a role, of course. quality of life is better when you have more things in common with your surroundings. this is about preferences, not perceived superiority though. at the very least you'd want your kids to have a common language with their classmates though.

> Maybe we should allow duplexes?

>> What's next TOXIC WASTE DUMPS IN OUR KIDS BREAKFAST CEREAL?

I'm not sure its possible to make a more dramatic statement.

Well, you've minimized the preceding argument while adding hyperbole to the responding argument. Of course we will agree with you that the straw man you have constructed is nonsense.

The parent arguments are both far more reasonable.

this doesn't qualify as a case of reductio ad absurdum because the original argument was not "why don't we allow duplexes?" but "why does the collective have a say in this at all?"

and the answer to that is "because of negative externalities"

American here, and I'm all in on the idea that we live in a society and our choices and decisions are constrained, to some extent, by the people around us.

The challenge for every generation and every society is to decide where to strike the balance between the individual and the group; it's never all one or the other, but always somewhere in between.

And I like this "your land isn't actually yours to do with whatever you please, no limits" idea. Count me in.

Why does that seem strange? All laws are the group imposing on the individual - what they aren't allowed to say, what they can't do, what they have to do, who they need to hire, where they can dig, when they are allowed to build, etc. None of that is far from "who isn't allowed to buy."

Ya, but most of those laws are about protecting the rights of individuals. I can't hit you because you have a right to bodily autonomy. What's being protected here?

The overall well being of the society as a whole. Plenty of laws have causes as vague even if you don't realize it is so and you arguably can't build a functioning society without laws stemming from vague but significant causes.

What is being protected is stated in the headline and first two sentences of the article.

... new policy designed to stop soaring house prices ...

... said the new plan was designed to stop rising house prices and will apply to non-residents.

You don't have a right to buy a house at a particular price.

If someone else is willing to pay more the seller should have the opportunity to sell it to them. These laws privilege the desires of some buyers over both the desires of sellers and non-native buyers.

Not every sell is equal if you look at it like at social contract. A family buying a house is different from investors looking to park their money.

It looks like ban will apply to non-residents rather than non-native. If you're non resident, why do you want to buy? Rent to check out the city, get residency which you'd need to live in a country anyway, then buy.

Why do non-citizen buyers deserve anything? It's their country, they don't have to let us in.

> You don't have a right to buy a house at a particular price.

I never said that I did.

> If someone else is willing to pay more the seller should have the opportunity to sell it to them. These laws privilege the desires of some buyers over both the desires of sellers and non-native buyers.

And if the areas in question had been rezoned to increase supply instead of reducing demand, that would have privileged the desires of a different group of people.

All laws privilege a certain set of desires over other sets of desires.

Why shouldn't people who live in an area have the right to decide how they want to collectively structure their lives and economics?

Why not?

Housing is a human right, and lots of US cities have all kinds of regulations around affordable housing. I think we're not far at all from "you do have the right to buy a house at a particular price," we just dress it up in fancier language.

" It seems strange to pass laws that say those individuals aren't allowed to sell to people that are willing to pay more money."

The sales of every good and service are regulated.

Capital transfers are regulated.

Taxes are based on different kinds of economic activity.

It's not even remotely strange that non-citizens should get a different tax treatment or whatever for sizeable personal assets.

I'm surprised that people are even allowed to do it in the first place.

I have no expectations that I can just 'go to China or Geramny and buy some houses'.

Because we’re not trading figurines or pretty pebbles here, but homes, a Primary Necessity that we humans need for survival.

Therefore we need to consider other subtleties to the act of trading such assets: how are my assets impinging on other assets nearby? Is it butt-ugly, does it fit the local decor, does it drive insane density in the neighborhood, does it drive prices displacing neighbors at an unsustainable pace, does it disrupt the local community, anonymizing neighborly relations, does it damage residents’ way of life?

You see, to not about money alone

It clear racism. Nothing more or less.

Some people are better than others because they are born closer. Let the others burn because as part of the ultra rich (almost all NZ people) I want to be richer and this seems to be the best way.

At worst it is nationalism, not racism.

And nationalism isn't always bad, a group protecting members of that group (say based on geography) to the exclusion of the out-group is just how groups function.

is it racism too if i lend money to my sister but not to a stranger on the streets?

Your hypothetical is a personal choice. The other one is about legally limiting the personal choices of other people. This is a bad comparison.

Which country doesn’t positively descriminate for its citizens? That’s more or less the point of them..

one would think so. it is so weird to me that this is called racist and xenophobic by so many people. collective delusion happens all over the spectrum.

so personal choices can't be racist?

"foreigner" is not a race, and isolationist or protectionist policies are rarely based on perceived attributes of specific races.

What? The idea is to limit prices. That reduces wealth.

? Absolutely.

It's bad for the economy and NZ society.

But this is politics not rational thought.

I guess we will see. New Zealand has gone from a comparatively equal society to one with a large divide in a relatively short time. Housing ownership is no longer possibly for many. This didnt seem right to a majority of voters.