[diogocp]

If the increase in value of the sellers' land is wholly due to Disney's development of its land nearby, the sellers would simply be benefiting from a positive externality created by Disney. Thus it would be Disney being shortchanged if it was unable to capture the value of that externality.

From an efficiency standpoint it is also preferable for the developer to capture the value, as naturally that increases incentives for development.

[bravoetch]

Is it okay for the buyer to lie, but not okay for the seller to ask for the truth and adjust their price accordingly? This 'anything goes' market ideology is the same framework that leads us to deceptive subscription systems, anti patterns etc. Deceiving people to make a buck is shitty behavior.

[ryandrake]

I’m pretty shocked by the whole “profiting from a deceptive transaction is ok if the counterparty believes you” attitude here. I guess I expected more out of HN. I feel like I’d have to keep my hand on my wallet and my eyes over my shoulder if I ever visited any of these guys’ businesses.

[Arainach]

HN has for a long time (longer than I've been here) had a strong libertarian streak, and like all libertarians they always seem to believe they're the ones who would come out on top in anarchy despite all historical evidence to the contrary.

[gowld]

From an efficiency standpoint it is preferable for a Land Value Tax to incentivize selling to whoever will put the property to best use.

[mcphage]

> If the increase in value of the sellers' land is wholly due to Disney's development of its land nearby, the sellers would simply be benefiting from a positive externality created by Disney

Isn't that true of any price increase due to increased demand? It seems like you're saying a seller shouldn't be allowed to raise their prices as demand increases, because they'd simply be benefiting from a positive externality created by the buyer.