re: #73 iossarian

That’s a fair point. But I think there is an important point to be made here:

I tend to criticize people who do things that lie outside their stated moral framework. If you’re a person who believes that people screw up but generally deserve second chances, I’m going to look a lot more kindly on your peccadilloes than if you’re a “one strike and you’re out, throw away the key” type of person.

To put it another way: if you’re really into the “defense of marriage”, you’re going to look like an enormous tool when you’re found to be screwing your campaign manager’s wife.

I apologize for having started this discussion going and then bailing on it, but I was called away for a while.

My point about liberals and apartments is definitional, I guess. I look at the term “liberal” as meaning someone who believes in a few basic things:

1> That society as a whole has an obligation to maintain a safety net of services for those who, through no fault of their own, cannot sustain themselves.
2> That how we tax ourselves to achieve <1> (and the other requirements of government) ought to include an element of progressivity to reflect that those who have most benefited from living here pay more.
3> That the freedoms found in the First Amendment are bedrock freedoms that are non-negotiable. (some of the other parts of the Bill of Rights, not so much. In particular, most liberals would say that SCOTUS blew it on their most recent Second Amendment decisions.)
4> That this is and shall remain a free market country with a free market economy, but that the players in that economy nonetheless require some degree of regulation, both for the good working of the economy as a whole and for fairness to the various participants therein. Thus anti-trust laws, financial regulation, the right to organize, etc…
5> That no one should be discriminated against due to their possessing characteristics that they did not choose and cannot change, like their race, sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.
6> That it is the right and responsibility of society as a whole to regulate the behavior of the various members thereof to make sure that none of us, acting individually or in concert, foul the environment in a way that is inappropriate.
And finally, that in general, when it isn’t necessary to achieve any of the things noted above or the other basic functions of government like roads, schools, public safety and the like, the government ought to leave us alone.
(I note that there are people we would identify as “liberals” whose beliefs are more extensive than those I outline above. For sure. I am aiming at the core beliefs they would all have in common.)

So in the context of the original argument, the question was whether it was illiberal to develop nice apartments in an area that was not originally so developed, or to buy such an apartment. My answer is “I don’t think so.” I think it is perfectly consistent for that developer to believe in the things I outlined above AND make money by redeveloping run-down real estate into nicer, more expensive real estate. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t suck to be the guy who is then priced out of his apartment. But to imply that being a liberal means you have to act in a manner that never causes any anguish to any living being is a bridge too far.

My two cents.