Governments Should Compete for Residents, Not Businesses

Re:Governments Should Compete for Residents, Not Businesses by lotsofpulp on Wednesday March 08, 2023 @02:25PM (#35073574)

I did not read it all as you did. “Coincidence” in welshwelsh’s comment was used to indicate who is deserving of the benefits of living in place X rather than place Y, where it can be reasonably concluded that X is overall better to live in than Y.

I disagree with nhchris’s response of

> It is their inheritance, their birthright, the fruit of their ancestors' labors.

Because there is no natural law that something is “your” inheritance, birthright, or that you have claim to the fruit of your ancestors’ labor. Might makes right is how nature works, and it just so happens that you were born in a time and place where certain “rights” are being upheld, and there is not a stronger party that wants and is able to take them from you.

You can even go further and replace place X and Y with parents X and Y.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Governments Should Compete for Residents, Not Businesses by tracker1 on Wednesday March 08, 2023 @04:05PM (#35074706)

I would say that if ownership of land and property are indeed a right... then being able to give that property to your descendants (or anyone else) is also a right.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Governments Should Compete for Residents, Not Businesses by lotsofpulp on Wednesday March 08, 2023 @04:21PM (#35074896)

Assuming the power structures governing the land allow that. See this example for how nebulous “rights” can be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce%27s_Beach

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Governments Should Compete for Residents, Not Businesses by bigger_inside on Wednesday March 08, 2023 @05:16PM (#35075508)

I didn't read this just materially. There's a language, customs, "ways of thinking" you inherit; also, there is an image, there are power structures and positions you're born into. Sociologists speak of different forms of capital: not just financial capital, also social capital, cultural capital, etc., that can all be "exchanged" for other things later (the relationships of your parents with other people, the ease qith which you can get an education title, etc)

and still: for the person born to "deserve" living with these benefits nebulously assumes the person, and the "deserving", were there first, and THEN you are born and by sheer chance, you got it - or not. Again, when you stop thinking this way, sort of "thinking of an abstract person" first, but rather realize that there are no abstract people, just real ones, this starts to feel weird.

[ Parent | on HN ]