[PatentTroll]

And what about AirBnb? Or any of the many 'gig economy' startups that flaunt labor laws? I agree with the article. Let's not punish innovation, but let's make sure we don't get a new normal of startups making money by breaking the law. And not just abstract policy wonk big gummint type of law, but like the things that make sure people don't get taken advantage of and are safe.

[CodeWriter23]

Your expensive rent, you can thank AirBNB for that, and they should be burned to the ground. The simple fact that the author glosses over is ridesharing, despite its scofflaw roots, has been legitimized and codified into law, because it is good for people and the people want it. Whereas what we're seeing with AirBNB is legislation to strictly curtail their activity. Because their activity is bad for people, and people who are locals don't want it.

[didibus]

Where I'm front, that's solved by allowing renters to sublet. So I know ton of people who affort rent by having one room be an airbnb, or doing airbnb once a weekend.

[PatentTroll]

Yeah, that's fucking terrible

[naravara]

>Your expensive rent, you can thank AirBNB for that

My rent was expensive for years before AirBnB came on the scene. AirBnB might put some slight upward pressure on rents in markets with a lot of tourism, but it pales in comparison to the simple fact that supply does not meet demand. Thank the zoning regs and lack of transit investment in less-urban parts of your metro area.

[ABCLAW]

Recent analysis of several real estate markets in Canada indicates that the supply side explanation for total unit cost and rental price increases is not accurate.

[GauntletWizard]

Canada is very different than the US - Significantly because it's much easier to buy a home as a foreign national, which has made cities like Vancouver attractive investment spots for Chinese businessmen who want to get some of their money overseas.

It's shortsighted to point to one item as being "the reason", but it's equally shortsighted to ignore major American cities (Let's be real - This is HN, we're talking about SF) shortsighted development policies as major contributing factors.

[CodeWriter23]

You haven't been paying attention to rents pre-AirBNB or you do not live in a city that has a tight supply of housing.

[Jabanga]

The laws restrict the right of people to do with their labour and private property what they want. They should be left unenforced, just like laws against marijuana and other personal choices. Driving things out of the formal economy and into the informal economy, and punishing people for engaging in voluntary interactions - in the name of 'protecting' them - has very harmful unintended consequences and goes against the foundational principles of liberal democracy.

Moreover, restricting voluntary economic interactions behind a wall of regulatory licensing schemes, like hotel licenses and taxi licenses, exacerbates income inequality:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-t...

In short, there's no commonly advocated policy more harmful to society than what you're advocating.

[ubernostrum]

The laws restrict the right of people to do with their labour and private property what they want.

When the choices you make with respect to the use of your property cause harm to other people or their property, they have the right to stop you and to recover damages for harm you've caused. When your voluntary transaction has involuntary (for other people) effects on others' property, they have the right to stop your transaction.

[Jabanga]

>When the choices you make with respect to the use of your property cause harm to other people or their property,

Offering something on the market, that other consenting adults voluntarily choose to buy, does not violate anyone's rights. Competitors do not have a right to dictate how consumers spend their money, so being out competed is not a violation of their rights.

What you're advocating is a blatant violation of their rights based on a belief that people are entitled to other people's private property.

[ubernostrum]

If you and I each own property along a river, and I run a factory and you run a farm, and I dump waste into the river that poisons your crops and livestock, that's just me exercising my absolute right to my own property, yes? And anything you do to try to stop or punish me is you feeling entitled to my private property, yes?

[Jabanga]

Dumping waste is not a voluntary interaction. It's a violation of someone else's private property. This has no resemblance to Uber out competing local taxis.

At least learn the basis of free market ideology before criticizing it.

[PatentTroll]

Ok, so taxis. If it is going to be a voluntary transaction, I need to know 1) the drivers background check to make sure he isn't a murderer or rapist, 2) has a clean driving record, 3) has a license, 4) carries insurance that covers me while I'm in his car, 5) is driving a safe vehicle, 6) and what the ride costs. Do you really expect each taxi passenger to sort out all of that info for each and every ride!? Wouldn't it be easier for everyone to get together to set some standards and put some folks in charge of enforcing those standards so that you can just hop in a cab and reasonably expect not to die? Doesn't that sound reasonable? Well that's all the regulation is. If you want to argue about NYC medallions and regulatory capture, you're not wrong. That shit should be figured out. By involvement in government, voting, and citizen action. What you're really mad about is the perceived inflexibility and ineffective nature of that process. But you're also the same kind of free market numbskull who supports unfettered capitalism and campaign donations, which is how a special interest strangles a government body like a taxi cab commission.

[sooheon]

It is not a voluntary interaction between property owners. It is a voluntary interaction between the factory owner and his customers, who are the paying parties and therefore the only entities of any consequence on the free market. It's called an externality for a reason, being that the free market cannot account for it.

[ubernostrum]

Ah, so you would restrict my enjoyment of my own private property. How entitled and paternalistic of you!

[bmpafa]

Moreover, restricting voluntary economic interactions behind a wall of regulatory licensing schemes, like hotel licenses and taxi licenses, exacerbates income inequality

Airbnb was valued at $31bn after its last round. As of market close today, that's about more than the market caps of Hilton & Intercontinental combined.

Despite what the astroturfing campaigns of Airbnb et al would have you believe, regulations are meant to, in part, protect competition. If we're unsatisfied with them, we ought to use elections to change them. But allowing private firms to engage in Uber's brand of regulatory arbitrage severely undermines gov't institutions.

[Jabanga]

>Airbnb was valued at $31bn after its last round. As of market close today, that's about more than the market caps of Hilton & Intercontinental combined.

The Airbnb industry stands to replace a large chunk of the entire hospitality industry, which is worth substantially more than $31 billion.

The astroturfing is by the powerful hotel lobby, as is almost always the case when you see a push to restrict voluntary economic interactions with licensing requirements that ordinary people can't afford (e.g. hotel licenses which almost all the Airbnb hosts would be unable to afford):

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/technology/inside-the-hot...

[PatentTroll]

What you fail to grasp is that your rights end where others begin, and there's more people in the world who aren't you than who are you. Grow up.

Let's get rid of doctor licensing then? The free market will separate the good ones from the ones who will kill you! Pyramid schemes? You have the right to invest in one, so why outlaw it? Toxic waste dump? Go for it! Don't let the evil law stop you! Seriously, you're incredibly dull if you cannot grasp the consequences of your words. Each and every one of these hated laws came about as a result of something bad happening, and people were like "yeah, let's prevent that from happening again." Then everything is good, and idiots like you come by and scream about the big gubmint keepin you down! The horrors! Well go back in time then you moron, to the time when slavery existed (there's a law against that) or kids worked in coal mines (there's a law against that) without safety equipment (nor laws) or taxi drivers didn't carry insurance (dreaded regulations that Uner flaunted).

[Jabanga]

>Let's get rid of doctor licensing then? The free market will separate the good ones from the ones who will kill you! Pyramid schemes? You have the right to invest in one, so why outlaw it? Toxic waste dump?

Unlicensed doctors should be legal. As should pyramid schemes. Dumping toxic waste on other people's private property or on commonly held public property is not a "voluntary interaction", and thus should be illegal. A free society is one where people are free to engage in voluntary interactions, and are safe from others violating their right to their person and property.

You tell me to "grow up" and lecture about how "your rights end where others begin". I recommend you take your own advice and learn what it is that I'm actually advocating (hint: a free market doesn't mean no laws/government, and people being allowed to dump toxic waste), and stop advocating for laws that restrict my rights to spend my money how I want.