Re:Lahaina residents worry a rebuilt Maui could slip to the ...
by jacquesm on Monday August 14, 2023 @10:59PM
(#37129654)
When you start quoting 'lesswrong' links to support idiotic libertarian positions that somehow magically make the cynical attempt to try to profit from others misery look like charity you can count me out.
This is not how you deal with a natural disaster. But to get that you'd first have to understand the principle of solidarity. Hint: you can't buy it on the free market.
Re:Lahaina residents worry a rebuilt Maui could slip to the ...
by gruez on Tuesday August 15, 2023 @10:58AM
(#37134793)
It's ironic you accuse me of having "idiotic libertarian positions" when all you've done is repeat your point and not addressing any of my points.
>This is not how you deal with a natural disaster. But to get that you'd first have to understand the principle of solidarity.
Going back to the original question, how should we deal with it? It'll be great if the government or some private benefactor decided to make those people whole. I'm not against that. However, if that's not an option, rich people putting in "unfair offer" is less bad than the alternative.
Re:Lahaina residents worry a rebuilt Maui could slip to the ...
by gruez on Tuesday August 15, 2023 @10:48PM
(#37142312)
So you admit that rich people putting in offers to buy the houses puts the homeowners in a better situation economically, but that doesn't matter because... feelings? I don't know about you, but personally I'd rather be in a warm house in Oklahoma, than homeless but with better feelings. If anything, if I was thinking clearly (ie. I didn't think the false options existed), I'd be furious if people like you prevented those offers from coming in (from lobbying governments to enact laws, for instance) because they thought they knew better than me.
Do you also get upset that construction workers profit after a disaster, because all the demand that it creates?
>when those people there are probably not in a position to refuse even an unfair offer.
You know what's worse than having your house burnt down, not having enough money to fix it, so you have to accept an "unfair offer" and move to Oklahoma or whatever? Having your house burnt down, not having enough money to fix it, and going homeless because you can neither fix your house nor sell it to buy one somewhere else.
The problem seems to be that you think the two options are:
1) Rich people are offering to buy the house, and the homeowner is forced to sell and move out :(
2) The homeowner isn't forced to sell and lives happily ever after :D
When in reality the second option doesn't exist and is a fabricated option[1]. The homeowner's house is burnt down. He doesn't have the money to fix it. He's already homeless. Not having the "unfair offer" isn't going to magically fix his house or give him money. The only way for him to live happily ever after is if he gets an infusion of cash somehow (eg. government aid or private donations), which has nothing to do with the "unfair offer". As long as the people making offers to buy the house also aren't simultaneously lobbying against government aid or whatever, they're not making the situation any worse. On the contrary, they're making the situation better by giving the homeowner more options.
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gNodQGNoPDjztasbh/lies-damn-...