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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
So the more expensive a property I have, the more pressure should be put on on me to rent it out? If I own a hovel I get to keep it to myself but if it's George Clooney's villa on Lake Como or Zuck's house in Palo Alto society should lean on them to make these places "productive" by renting them out?
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.
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.