[ghshephard]

The meta point that I was trying to make, and I think is really important, not only in this context, but in a vast number of contentious threads, in HN and other arenas, is so often when we are voicing what we propose is a moral, or ethical position, is no more than a declaration of what our particular situation happens to be at that time.

Someone living in a rent-controlled apartment will be a strong believer in rent control. Someone owning real estate will be opposed to rent control. What I find fascinating is that the same person with the same knowledge, background, and education might hold two diametrically opposite positions.

[pingswept]

Mostly agreed about your meta point. I think you're omitting the possibility that someone might be opposed to something that benefits them.

But in the non-meta discussion, all I'm saying is that you don't know which commenters are in which situation, and especially not with 95% certainty, like you claimed. Some of the commenters might oppose rent control, even though they benefit from it. Other commenters might strongly support rent control in San Francisco, even though they live in Wyoming. We just don't know.

[ghshephard]

So - I grant you that I don't have epistemological knowledge of these commentors positions. And yes, you're right, for people that don't have any skin in the game (people outside the bay area) - it's much more difficult to understand what their position is.

I guess my only hope is that when people voice a very strong opinion on this topic (or, for that matter, any topic) - that they might consider whether they are holding that position with a "veil of ignorance", or whether they are just projecting from their own situation.

[pingswept]

Agreed, good sir or madam!