Dorsetdays t’s different because it suits your argument? The basic principle is the same, you’re ‘depriving’ someone of shelter and you have more than you need.
That's a very specific and personal ideological viewpoint. Its one that clearly isn't enshrined in the law of this country, because it is not illegal to own second homes. Even in communist Russia, a stuga in the countryside was often permitted and second holiday homes which are empty most of the year are the norm in Scandinavia. So it is therefore a personal value judgement that you are trying to apply. Its not up to individuals to make up rules and I believe morally repugnant to then judge them against this arbitrary definition of "selfishness". In this country, we already give up a high proportion of our earned income in tax, and the more you earn, the more tax you pay.
There are, as usual, some posts by people who would like to claim the moral high ground. Its a very easy thing to do - going on an internet site and posting about your own value choices and how "bad" people are. Maybe it makes you feel better, but its not particularly useful, as opposed to actually doing something, such as renovating a property which was previously uninhabitable.
I have personally been insulted and mocked numerous times by the OP and sworn at by her because I don't agree with her very strict viewpoint and because she wants to stifle intelligent debate on the subject. I don't even have a holiday home (although I do have a house that I do not live in which I have been trying to sell for 2 years (probably due to the restrictions on buy to let mortgages and excessive building of new homes which aren't selling in the particular area) and in which I have a lodger). For the life of me, I can't see how someone can claim the moral high ground, yet be so quick to insult people on scant information. Grudging hard working people a holiday and trying to guilt trip them must be one of the unbelievable things I've heard. Yes, the OP has a point if she does indeed live in an empty village which is full of empty holiday homes, but she hasn't provided evidence of this. What she has provided evidence of is a mean nature and a strange dislike of people deigning to enjoy themselves on holiday, without offering any solutions as to how people should actually holiday with all the restrictions she would like to see in place. Its a peculiarly non-constructive argument. We have seen tax changes in recent years which means that second home owners pay their share of council tax, even though their use of services is minimal, and there is now a punitive level of stamp duty payable on second home purchasers, which also catches out those moving for work reasons who can't sell their existing home.
OP - if you are going to respond to me directly, can you try and demonstrate a little bit better education than you have done thus far and refrain from insults and swearing?
The "shelter is a basic human need" argument is one that has become very fashionable amongst the left in recent years. There is good reason for this. Its one of those very emotive arguments that people surveyed in the street will often answer in a very predicable way, agreeing with the premise. It guilt trips people. It therefore makes an equally good stick to beat those who don't agree with your political ideology with. "You have more than you need" the argument goes, so therefore you should give me more of what you have to even things out. There is no end to this - so it doesn't matter how inefficient the argument is in practice, there will always be a justification for taking what someone else has, based on this thinking.
And if people don't agree with you, just insult them, even though they are a perfectly good contributor to society!
Wheres the real moral repugnance?