Well, then find a way to make people pay for those externalities if and when they occur.
What I'm against is the assumption that renting out your home should be illegal by default, i.e. illegal unless you meet a bunch of conditions. This makes it difficult to ask how we might target specific instances of negative externality.
IMO, when it comes to what you can do with your own property, the assumption should be legal by default, i.e. legal except when a specific way of using your property has demonstrable negative externalities, and even in that case, only illegal to the extent to which your actions cause such externalities.
Illegal-by-default is anathema to innovation, because it places a buden on innovators to demonstrate that they are causing no harm. It's like a subtler version of guilty-until-proven-innocent.
> It's like a subtler version of guilty-until-proven-innocent.
> That principle only applies to criminal law.
Of course you're right, literally. But only literally. Which part of the word "like" do you not understand?
Is it perfectly fine to treat people with a G-U-P-I attitude as long as you don't do it in the context of criminal law? What about Google canceling your Adsense account for reasons known only to them and refusing to talk with you at all? What about PayPal freezing random charities' accounts with no recourse other than shaming them on reddit? If that's okay, may I accuse you of killing my cat, just because you can't show me any proof that you didn't?
Outside of criminal law, mostly your question would be answered by the contracts you signed or otherwise agreed to. Read them and find out.
Generally I would argue that businesses that provide contracts to the wide world would have termination clauses : both parties can end the contract, with no warning, with no explanation necessary. Since you agreed to this, why would you be opposed to it ? Go to a competitor.
Killing animals you don't own is entirely different (it is criminal) and I don't understand why you're comparing the two, or why you feel both should carry similar laws.
What I'm against is the assumption that renting out your home should be illegal by default, i.e. illegal unless you meet a bunch of conditions. This makes it difficult to ask how we might target specific instances of negative externality.
IMO, when it comes to what you can do with your own property, the assumption should be legal by default, i.e. legal except when a specific way of using your property has demonstrable negative externalities, and even in that case, only illegal to the extent to which your actions cause such externalities.
Illegal-by-default is anathema to innovation, because it places a buden on innovators to demonstrate that they are causing no harm. It's like a subtler version of guilty-until-proven-innocent.