Re:Swiss Copyright Law: Downloading Stays Legal, No Site Blo...
by hundt on Thursday September 19, 2019 @10:54AM
(#21016740)
To me it feels like you are arguing that the guiding principle for whether an action is "antisocial" is whether you are free riding or imposing externalities: getting a benefit at other people's expense.
Which is a fine moral principle, and does easily distinguish between all your "antisocial" examples and my "housing choice" example (assuming correct prices).
But it doesn't seem to require the "what if everyone did it?" principle. So I'm wondering if that principle brings any additional value, or indeed if it is a real moral principle at all. Hence my question.
The vast majority of the US lives outside what we’d consider “the city” so that’s a bad example. But anyway the difference is that the act in question involves payment for a scarce resource. If everyone paid for a house in the suburbs (assuming that the prices factored in externalities) then it would be fine because prices would regulate land use. And if the price doesn’t include externalities then it is antisocial to live in the suburbs, as folks here in HN point out regularly.