[HDThoreaun]

> Which is the whole point here, direct democracy leads to 51% of the population shafting the other 49%.

Notice that prop 15 lost by 4%... It is not good for the state as a whole, but it is good for the 52% of the voters that own a home. So now 48% of the state and everyone that wants to move to california is fucked because 9 million people want their home value to keep increasing. They've effectively voted in a law that requires non homeowners to pay homeowners $500 a year and burn another $500 due to lost economic efficiency. Is that good for homeowners? I guess, but it's certainly bad for the state.

If 52% of people in alabama wanted to bring back slavery does that make it the right thing to do?

[RestlessMind]

> Notice that prop 15 lost by 4%

And it targeted only commercial and industrial properties, with proceeds going to education and local govt funding. That is, as sympathetic setup as it could be. It didn't touch any residential homes, neither primary nor secondary nor rentals. And it still lost.

> it is good for the 52% of the voters that own a home

It seems you didn't read what prop 15 was about. If it included homes, the vote against it would have been much higher than 52%.

[HDThoreaun]

Prop 15 failed because people were worried that if it passed prop 13 would be repealed next election. It had nothing to do with people wanting commercial properties to have tax breaks and everything to do with signaling how devoted the voters are to prop 13.

> If it included homes, the vote against it would have been much higher than 52%.

Source?

No matter though. Even if 70% of voters support prop 13 it's still the wrong policy in the exact same way 70% support for enslaving minorities is. Laws that exist solely to siphon money from poor people to rich people are bad. Doubly so when they destroy economic value to the extent prop 13 does.

[RestlessMind]

> Source?

https://www.ppic.org/blog/who-likes-proposition-13/ (at least until 2014, ~65% Californians think prop 13 is a good thing, similar to original support levels in 1978).

> No matter though. Even if 70% of voters support prop 13

Moving goalposts now? Upthread, you were talking about 51% shafting 49% and that was a pure hyperbole which I called out. Prop 13 support is much more massive (more like 63-27 per my citation above).

> exact same way 70% support for enslaving minorities is

Nope. Enslaving someone is forbidden under the US constitution and personal freedom is recognized as a basic right, backed by the full force of the state. Prop 13 merely affects prices in some small areas of a giant state and there is no constitutional right to "own a home in the most expensive area of the country".

Again, comparing that to slavery is another hyperbole meant to evoke emotions?

[HDThoreaun]

> comparing that to slavery is another hyperbole meant to evoke emotions?

I really don't think it is. Prop 13 turns non homeowners into wage slaves. It makes housing prohibitively expensive. It is a deeply unjust law. I'm not trying to make some case about the legality of forcing non homeowners to pay exorbitant amounts for housing, I'm saying it's morally and in many ways economically comparable to slavery, or at least serfdom.

I don't really think I ever moved the goalposts. My take was always that direct democracy leads to the majority shafting the minority and that's exactly what prop 13 does. It doesn't matter that the majority supports enriching themselves by taking money from the minority, it's a bad law for the state because it destroys economic value and is obviously unjust.

[RestlessMind]

> I really don't think it is. Prop 13 turns non homeowners into wage slaves...It makes housing prohibitively expensive.

Barring a few pockets, housing is cheap even in California. Now, if your claim is that everyone who wants to should be able to afford a home in SF or Palo Alto, then that is something else.

> majority supports enriching themselves by taking money from the minority

How is majority taking money from minority in this case?