Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Any right that the government grants to a person impinges upon another right held by someone else. If you grant someone the right to live in a rent-controlled apartment you're forcibly removing the right of the property owner to rent out his/her apartment at any terms.

It's not like any of these rights are free, they come at steep costs, and it's hard to say who should actually be the stakeholders of any given decision. Should it be the people owning property in the city? (that's how decisions in condominium buildings are made -- by owner's vote, not by resident's vote). Should it be people living in the city right now? Should it be people who would live in the city if the measure in question was adopted? How much influence should people in one neighborhood have over what happens in another neighborhood (i.e., should there be a neighborhood level of city government, and what powers should it have relative to the city government?)

The same set of stakeholder definition issues come up when thinking about granting work visas to a foreign national -- should that individual's desire to work in the United States be part of the decision to let him in, since once you do, he'll be a voting American citizen, or should he not have a say in that decision since he's not yet a citizen?




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: