Let's not associate such positives with Shkreli.

I agree, access to healthcare is a fundamental human right. Shkreli might have liked to act like Robin Hood, "You'll only ever pay $10/month for a medicine, I'll make insurers pay the rest", a laughably condescending perspective that only shows that he believes enough people are too ignorant to make the connection of where exactly insurance pools come from, their indirect income. But many people glommed on to that.

Here's an example of Shkreli showing his real stripes:

A drug comes before the FDA for approval, and it is opened up for comment. Shkreli lodges an objection to approval of this drug.

Why? Because it's unsafe? No, trials thus far have shown it to be safer than existing drugs.

Why? Because it's less effective? No, it's also been shown to be more effective than existing drugs?

Perhaps it's more expensive? No, cost of R&D and production, and estimated retail costs are expected to be lower than existing drugs.

Huh, odd. So why did Shkreli oppose this drug getting to the market?

Because he and his company had just bought the patent to one of those 'existing drugs' recently, and this drug coming to market would torpedo demand for his drug, and torpedo the profitability of his investment in buying the patent.

Man of the people, fighting for healthcare rights, Martin Shkreli.

But is housing in SF a fundamental need?

I think the question posed is quite relevant, and FWIW my take is that property rights are a concern here. The answer is that there are other concerns in tension with this — including the desire to have more affordable housing in The city and voters apparently consider this to be more important in this case.

The landlords are free to move out of SF as much as tenants are. Nobody is held at gunpoint.

They cannot move out taking the houses with them. Not at gunpoint, but still not able to move it.

It's a fundamental need for some people, if you want to have a healthy city where firefighters, teachers, baristas, servers, etc. can live there without having the city's cost of living externalized via multiple hour megacommutes.

There's a one bedroom flat in Moldovia that's a perfect fit for you. They will also deliver meals every day. Of course, you don't get to choose which flat or which meal. Choice is freedom, and freedom is never free.

I agree all the things I like are a fundamental right and should be subsidized by the government. Also, everything I don't like should be banned.

I really like living in expensive cities!

Importantly they said fundamental need and not fundamental right, though I find it a bit disgusting how someone could be so strongly opposed to helping people meet their basic needs. Isn't that what society is for?

> housing is a fundamental human need

Not sure what that means in practice. If I pay for my own house, what percentage of my income should be set aside to pay for other people's houses?

You were asking for a limiting principle and I gave you one. You're now making a weird insinuation that I think that limiting principle should morph into a tax policy that applies to people who don't own rental properties, which feels like a non sequitur.

But, my personal feeling is "at least some", because homelessness is fundamentally a housing supply problem and I think no one likes it, so it sounds like the kind of social ill that needs funding to address.

> You're now making a weird insinuation...

Not sure how. I am trying to understand your thinking. But the phrase "housing is a fundamental human need" can use some explication. What's the maximum for "at least some"? (Roughly, not trying to pin you down to a particular number.)

Pretty much all my tax policies boil down to getting rid of super corrupt breaks to energy and ag, and a 110% tax on income over 10 million, and Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax. Confident we can build some baller cribs on that kind of cheddar.

> 110% tax on income over 10 million

Why not 125% or 200%? Or save even more souls at 500%?

Morty: "... If you really want your grandpa back, grab a shovel, because the one that won't let you down is buried in the backyard."

Summer: "You're right!"

Morty: "What! No! I was using ghoulish overkill! Ghoulish overkill Summer!"