Seriously, I can’t believe I got to explain this to you. Were you literally raised by wolfs?
If I, say sign a contract with my gym, and it turns out I don’t have the $$$ to pay my dues, the owners of the gym don’t send a buncha armed goons to my home, throw me, my family, and all our belongings out into the street, lock us out of our own home, and reduce us to homelessness.
I mean, by that logic, back in the day, you’d be asking: “Why are indentured servants different from anyone else who signs a contract…”. Excuse me while I puke.
Fundamentally I don’t think land or natural resources should be ownable, but I’m not necessarily against compromise in the name of practical necessities. I think the hinting though might have been for @6ix. That’s just a guess though and largely process of elimination.
That doesn’t really help. I’m trying to wrap my head around how this works in practice so I can understand the thought process.
I’ve already said as much further up in the thread that eliminating landlords won’t eliminate the cost of housing, so if not the elimination of rent itself, what’s the point of all this?
Nobody has put forth a cogent outline of the end game here aside from not wanting evil landlords to evict people or make a profit on their units.
Around here its about 3 months from missing payment to “armed goons” showing up at the door.
If you were living in the gym and didn’t pay dues they would do just that.
So renting = indentured servitude? I assume you believe landlords shouldn’t exist? If that’s the case then I disagree with you but yea your post is consistent with the premise.
Now who’s trolling? In the example above, the gym owner would have every right to order this person out of his gym and have him removed and arrested if he refused to leave.
I have no idea why you think the fact that the gym owner also can’t get you evicted from your home is some kind of “Gotcha.”
I guess we can talk about the meta issues surrounding why you come up with moronic examples to try to make your points.
There have been a couple but the thing to think about is that Landlords aren’t bad, profit seeking in housing is bad. You’re always going to need someone to manage a multi-family housing building, but you don’t also have to have someone trying to make a 15% profit off of it.
I’m sure you can figure out a way to remove the profit motive from housing if you think about it.
Okay, but again, does that mean you simply cannot be evicted for non-payment of rent? Doesn’t seem very sustainable. So if rents aren’t eliminated, but there are no consequences for not paying your rent… does that not mean that rents are effectively eliminated? Now we’re back to asking what sort of apartment I can expect to be living in under this new system of optional rent payments. I know your primary job is snark, so I won’t hold you specifically responsible for a solid answer to this. I want to hear from the “Eviction is Murder” people.
Can’t speak for anyone else but there are lots of possible ways to have housing without landlords. I’m not for abolishing landlords though, except perhaps if it’s along with having no private ownership of land.
Historically, Jews have been the subject of unrelenting and unfair criticism due to perceived greed (via the practice of lending money at interest). Hence, the critique of those who “make money with money” is an archetypal anti-semitic view.
Once the building is paid for how much do you think rent is going to be? Do you think people being evicted for non-payment just don’t want to pay rent this month? Take away the profit motive and you have to rethink most of the other equations.
Will the rental market be as fluid in such a world? Who knows, how much demand currently is from people downsizing instead of new dwelling seekers?