The landlords would be happy with the subsidy, but it doesn't do much for the renter (except encourage them to move where the cash gets more). I guess the subsidized housing could drive out the would be gentrifiers, but then everybody's worse off.

What alternatives aren't just as bad or worse i regards to the displacement of people? At least with gentrification the displacement is to a good end.

They're very different - two reasons, not exhaustive. First, immigration doesn't force natives to leave in the way gentrification opponents claim gentrification does. It's not the moving in people dislike about gentrification, but being pushed out.

Second, nationalism is legitimate in a way localism isn't. The borders of a part of town are frivolous compared to the borders of nations, both in practical respects and in terms of normal human bonds. Ironically, the opponent of gentrification is the person with the least solidarity - the fortunes of his neighborhood and neighbors improve but all he does is moan "Me, me, me!" Is it any wonder their neighbors are glad to trade the pro-squalor activists in for people who are pro-improvement?

An interesting paper that commits the author to some substantial positions. The way the author defines morality depends on epiphenomenalism being false. If morality depends on freedom and freedom exists only as a subjective experience, epiphenomenalism would refute the very possibility of morality by rendering its basis causally inert.

I'd be interested to see his thoughts on Calvinists - committed liars, amoral zombies, or madmen? If people all feel subjectively free, they're either lying or people can be mistaken about what it is to feel free, raising issues for the author's own position.

A quality article - to the point, clear, and thought provoking.

Note: I'm not a committed epiphenomenalist, I just consider it a serious possibility.