> So to summarize you: rights are not inalienable but dependent on if people get annoyed.
You're not being reasonable, but rather reading your own straw men into what I wrote.
Based on your misunderstandings, I can pretty confidently say that "rights" are a lot more complicated and multifaceted than you seem to comprehend. There are more kinds of rights relevant here than just property ownership rights and those created through contracts.
To put it another way: these Japanese regulations can be thought of as an articulation of preexisting rights that hadn't previously been codified.
I'm just going to ignore all the ridiculous hyperbole in the rest of your comment, because it's not worth a response. You seem enchanted by an over-simple toy mental model of society (with an admittedly seductive simplicity), and angry that it's not normative in a world that's too complex for it to fit.
You rested your argument on the fact that we should take away someone’s right because they got annoyed. So no, I am not being unreasonable.
I don’t need you to realize rights are inalienable but you do need to me to believe that submitting to oppression does bestow rights to me or else your framework falls apart.
> You rested your argument on the fact that we should take away someone’s right because they got annoyed. So no, I am not being unreasonable.
You are being unreasonable. You seem to be unable to imagine things except from the POV of a person who wants to rent out an apartment as an AirB&B, which may be the root of your unreason.
Anyway, this thread is dead and you seem immune to the insight that what you seem see as an "inalienable right" (turning an apartment into a dedicated AirB&B) might actually be an oppression on others. It's pointless to continue.
I'm glad you're not my neighbor, and I'm glad there's government to keep you from being too much of an inconsiderate asshole if you were.
You're not being reasonable, but rather reading your own straw men into what I wrote.
Based on your misunderstandings, I can pretty confidently say that "rights" are a lot more complicated and multifaceted than you seem to comprehend. There are more kinds of rights relevant here than just property ownership rights and those created through contracts.
To put it another way: these Japanese regulations can be thought of as an articulation of preexisting rights that hadn't previously been codified.
I'm just going to ignore all the ridiculous hyperbole in the rest of your comment, because it's not worth a response. You seem enchanted by an over-simple toy mental model of society (with an admittedly seductive simplicity), and angry that it's not normative in a world that's too complex for it to fit.
reply