Outside of the big cities there are a lot of “renting out the furnished basement to help make my mortgage payments” landlords. At least some of the massive foreclosure wave that is about to hit us includes these landlords in rural and suburban areas.
Wouldn’t that make the audience people who get to dunk on me for biting?
Possibly. I guess you’re the talent.
By this logic owning diamonds is ridiculous or oil or minerals.
See Adam Smith about the labor theory of value. There’s nothing that makes obvious sense about owning natural resources. It’s just the social contract. Controlling more than one’s equal share of resources should never be seen as a right, but as an expedient, something that is allowed as part of the game of an “economy” because it’s useful. Not because it’s just. And not making any sense or being any kind of right other than the right of conquest, it shouldn’t be allowed to cause damage to society. Shouldn’t really be allowed to hurt individuals, but most people would probably be ok with trading logical and ethical consistency for enough real benefit.
1 Like
And of course society totally decides what is ownable. The air? Water? One’s body? Intellectual property? One mile below ground of your house? 100 miles below ground? The section all the way to the center of the Earth? Animals? Children? People? What types of animals? All owning means is that a court is going to take your side and police will enforce something.
The answer to “why should people be able to own land?” should just be “because it makes for a better society”, but that doesn’t mean that people should be able to own unlimited amounts of land or use it in any way possible as if they have some obvious ethical right to own natural resources. That should be based on something we just agreed on and should only be done as far as it is helpful and not pretend that basing it on conquest as it has been done is ever ethical and should be enforced without considering what is really ethical.
And, as a matter of liberty, it should never make life impossible for people who aren’t in love with social contracts.
5 Likes
Bump for this pair of assholes. What’s worse than landlords? An LLC owning a house with multiple owners!
Time share company worth a billion - lol.
Landlords need to be abolished.
“It’s going from $850 with heat and hot water included to $1,800 with nothing included, and I was completely shocked,” says Train, “I thought it was a typo, to be honest.”
2 Likes
This is pretty interesting. I can see that it would be a very bad idea to allow monopoly level holdings of all the rental properties, that’s just a recipe for guaranteed abuses. Not to mention that if a couple of large companies own all these properties they will effectively become too big to fail and will naturally overextend and leverage themselves like crazy knowing that they will be able to get bailouts by claiming that they provide “essential” housing.
This isn‘t going anywhere. It‘s a non-binding referendum that demands something that is likely unconstitutional. Private property is constitutionally protected and can only be expropriated under very specific circumstances.
1 Like
What about Sealords?
The best way to abolish landlords is owning your own castle imo.
Which one? The one with the ceramics that looks like wood?
The fireplace by the billard table has four hounds - good enough?
How about a villa in Rome?
It lacks in fireplaces though. Also the garden could use some plum trees.
8 bedrooms and 25 bathrooms? That must include the outhouse for the garden hermit, but still…
This one contains some historical titbits, but leaves some questions open. Like what they might have done with the pictures.
1 Like