[adrenalinelol]

There should be similar laws all over. In a global economy, if "regular people" have to compete with multi-millionaires and billionaires who can move capital wherever, whenever they want, housing where any decent paying jobs are located will continue to become more and more unaffordable.

Please note: I'm fully aware this isn't the ONLY reason for ridiculous housing prices.

[tomcam]

So you should have the ability to force other people how to use the house they paid for? Should I be able to tell you how to use your computer, phone, or car?

[goatsi]

They should consider becoming citizens if they want to get the same treatment as citizens in the country. Most countries have significant limitations on what non-citizens can purchase, try buying land in China.

[eis]

Try becoming a citizen of China. And even if you manage to on paper, try becoming a culturally accepted citizen of China. China is a terrible example of what it should be like.

[tomcam]

My favorite counterargument! Duly upvoted. I did try buying real estate in China. Just ended up giving money to my in-laws instead.

[amazon_not]

That counterargument kind of assumes you can become a citizen wherever you want. A lot of people can't, even if they could afford to buy a house.

[stephengillie]

We do have laws that do tell you how you can and cannot use your house, computer, phone, and car.

  Pedantic examples: 
  - You cannot imprison another adult human within your house. 
  - You cannot access a secured computer system with your computer. 
  - You cannot (could not?) use your phone during certain parts of airplane takeoff and landing, and they may not be allowed in certain buildings.
  - You cannot park your car wherever you want; only on the side of the street and not in the middle of the street.

Furthermore, transience discourages communities, regardless of the transient's income level.

[tomcam]

It appears that you equate imprisonment with someone occupying an unused home. Is that correct ?

[grzm]

From the other examples, I think it's pretty clear that it's just a list of examples. What do you read into the others provided?

[ssalazar]

> So you should have the ability to force other people how to use the house they paid for?

This already happens. In much of the US you can't use your house as a storefront for a retail business or for heavy manufacturing, for instance. Housing/communities should reflect the principles of the people that live there and benefit the local community as a whole, not just serve as a wealth store for people in economically unstable countries.

> Should I be able to tell you how to use your computer, phone, or car?

Yeah you already do (by proxy). Automobiles are among the most regulated property in existence, and its a crime for instance to use a computer to illegally obtain access to someone else's computer.

[Frondo]

I should and do have the ability to force how you use your radio transmission equipment, such that you don't broadcast noise on all channels.

I should and do have the ability to force you to drive on the street and not the sidewalk and obey traffic signals.

I should and do have the ability to take some of your money to put toward the general welfare (road maintenance, public libraries, a police force) in the community we share.

I should and do have the ability to force you not to burn garbage in your back yard, blast music at all hours out of your garage, and so on.

That's kinda society in a nutshell, and it's a little surprising you're asking the question. It's rules that we generally mostly agree on--not all of us will agree on every rule, of course--that govern how we live our lives and do things with our stuff.

[tomcam]

So it's OK if we pass a law in your town forcing you to loan your car to me when you're not using it, correct?

[chongli]

Should I be able to tell you how to use your computer, phone, or car?

No. Land is different from all of those other things. We can always make millions more cars, phones, and computers. We can't make millions of additional housing units in economically important cities like San Francisco, New York, Vancouver, Toronto, etc. So it behooves us to make sure that housing in those places is being used efficiently instead of sitting vacant. That's all there is to it.

[tomcam]

Let's use your house more efficiently. If you live in the United States, I bet you have a house that could fit at least two more families in it. Do you mind if I move in some of my relatives? Or, more specifically do you mind if your neighbors passed such a law?

[snrplfth]

We can stack houses though. That does work pretty well.

[chongli]

It works pretty well in theory, not so well in practice. Too many issues with neighbourhood associations, land values, zoning, infrastructure, etc. It actually turns out to be very hard to increase the housing stock in a lot of major cities.

[snrplfth]

I'd say it's overwhelmingly due to the regulatory straightjacket these cities are caught in. Municipal and regional governments have made it extremely difficult to add new housing through increased density, and then they find that prices are climbing sharply, and wonder "how did this happen?!" Well, supply was choked off.

[cmurf]

Weird questions. No one is forcing anyone how they use the house. A buyer tax on the house is not a "how to use".

And yes, we have all sorts of laws how to use a car, (and yes even computers and phone come with laws limiting certain uses that can harm others).

[nugget]

The broadest solution is very high property taxes - ideally a land value tax - in order to encourage productive use of property and limit speculative bubbles.

[tomcam]

Who decides what productive means? I think you should be working a second and third job. I don't think you're productive enough.

[nugget]

You answered your own question - money (e.g. the second job) is how we measure productivity.

[tomcam]

As far as I can tell, my property taxes do not change according to my productivity.

[nugget]

Well by those terms, the more tax you owe on a property the more productive either it and/or you have to be to maintain it - as the taxes increase, so do the incentives for you to put the property to work (as a rental), so that it helps to cover the cost of its own existence. It's similar to the incentives around NIT in Europe - if you have to pay money to the bank for them to store your Euros, you have more of an incentive to find productive capital investments instead.

[tudorw]

It's a little different as land is finite, I could own 100 phones, it would not change your option to buy one, if I bought 100 houses in your town, you might have to move. Here in the UK for example, crucial support staff, teachers, nurses, policeman, are paid by the state, they are having to move further from their place of work to find affordable housing, so they commute further and its hard for organisations to be reactive as staff need to be on site, not on call, which costs all of us more taxes, so I think if you buy a house, you 'rent' a piece of the land from the sovereign entity that protects residents, if you are not utilising it you are a burden.

[foota]

Phones are finite too, though less so than land.

[tudorw]

it's a fair point, they use some rare stuff, anyone worked out if we can all have one based on current population growth / phone use growth ?

[foota]

Probably. There's already a _lot_ of phones. The question is how new of phones everyone want.

The issue imo isn't how many resources we have, but how much capital we're willing to devote to phone production.

[iampherocity]

FCC, computer fraud and abuse act, DMV. You should have thrown in plane to come up the most regulated industries where you are HIGHLY restricted in what you can do with your device.