Yes. Housing is a human right. Not an “investment”. There are literally so many other things you could invest on, but you choose to profit through one of the worst symptoms of inequality.
I’m not trying to be contrary to your comment I’m just legitimately curious as to what you might view as a similar investment. I can’t, at the moment, think of anything that would have a similar return structure that isn’t essentially doing the same thing. Hoarding a finite resource and charging a premium for its use.
Your comment only argues it’s bad, which is not the question. The question is if it’s hypocritical.
I agree with you that it’s bad, and also think it’s not hypocritical to e.g. campaign for making owning investment properties illegal while owning an investment property. You are still the bad guy here but it’s not hypocritical to want a world where the bad thing you are doing is is no longer a thing, if for example the person in question thinks it would be unfair for them to miss out on the investment “while everyone else is doing it”.
Your are the bad guy but no, you are not a hypocrite.
It would be hypocritical to tell others not to own investment properties while you do.
What does that have to do with my comment? Again, the question is not whether it’s bad. It is bad, but it’s totally besides the point. Housing was just an example anyway.
OP is asking if it’s hypocritical to argue against a bad thing being commonplace, while doing the bad thing yourself.
Another example could be campaigning for stricter car emission laws while owning a car that wouldn’t meet them.
I agree. And I think that not in all of such situations you would be misaligned with your values.
For example you may argue for making cars illegal, while you yourself own a car. You are not being a hypocrite, you are hoping that if cars were illegal, society would become more bike-friendly which is your ultimate goal, enabling you to stop needing a car.
Key point being that you are not telling others not to own car, or not to buy investment properties while you yourself do. That would be hypocritical. Arguing for these things being illegal is not hypocritical, because it would affect you all the same.
You are still missing the point, judging by the “to justify it”, since I never said anything is trying to justify anything. I just recognize the difference between “bad” and “hypocritical”. You can do a bad thing and not be a hypocrite, you can do a good thing and be a hypocrite.
If you use a car. You are okay using cars.
Correct. Which doesn’t conflict with my point at all. The person in that example is okay using cars. Where they are legal. And wants to make them legal in less places. Nothing hypocritical about it.
Yes. Housing is a human right. Not an “investment”. There are literally so many other things you could invest on, but you choose to profit through one of the worst symptoms of inequality.
What other things would you invest in?
I’m not trying to be contrary to your comment I’m just legitimately curious as to what you might view as a similar investment. I can’t, at the moment, think of anything that would have a similar return structure that isn’t essentially doing the same thing. Hoarding a finite resource and charging a premium for its use.
Your comment only argues it’s bad, which is not the question. The question is if it’s hypocritical.
I agree with you that it’s bad, and also think it’s not hypocritical to e.g. campaign for making owning investment properties illegal while owning an investment property. You are still the bad guy here but it’s not hypocritical to want a world where the bad thing you are doing is is no longer a thing, if for example the person in question thinks it would be unfair for them to miss out on the investment “while everyone else is doing it”.
Your are the bad guy but no, you are not a hypocrite.
It would be hypocritical to tell others not to own investment properties while you do.
Nah. It’s bad. Landowners are parasites. Do and contribute nothing. They are incentivized to peddle in misery.
Housing should not be a commodity. It is a human right.
What does that have to do with my comment? Again, the question is not whether it’s bad. It is bad, but it’s totally besides the point. Housing was just an example anyway.
OP is asking if it’s hypocritical to argue against a bad thing being commonplace, while doing the bad thing yourself. Another example could be campaigning for stricter car emission laws while owning a car that wouldn’t meet them.
Should you shoot the innocents because everyone else is doing it?
No. You’re either aligned with your values or a hypocrite.
I agree. And I think that not in all of such situations you would be misaligned with your values.
For example you may argue for making cars illegal, while you yourself own a car. You are not being a hypocrite, you are hoping that if cars were illegal, society would become more bike-friendly which is your ultimate goal, enabling you to stop needing a car.
Key point being that you are not telling others not to own car, or not to buy investment properties while you yourself do. That would be hypocritical. Arguing for these things being illegal is not hypocritical, because it would affect you all the same.
Your feelings don’t change the world.
If you use a car. You are okay using cars.
Whatever you say to yourself to justify it is meaningless.
It is normalized hypocrisy.
You are still missing the point, judging by the “to justify it”, since I never said anything is trying to justify anything. I just recognize the difference between “bad” and “hypocritical”. You can do a bad thing and not be a hypocrite, you can do a good thing and be a hypocrite.
Correct. Which doesn’t conflict with my point at all. The person in that example is okay using cars. Where they are legal. And wants to make them legal in less places. Nothing hypocritical about it.
Lol. “Nothing wrong with owning slaves as long as you feel bad about it and what it to be illegal.”
Ok American. I’m out.