So, I take it you aren’t at all interested in having any sort of compare-and-contrast of Landlordism -vs- Georgism, or I assume -vs- anything else in the real world, either historically or contemporaneously. Good to know.
Instead, you would prefer to deep dive into a fantasy world. And not any fantasy world, a fantasy world you imagine exists in my head. Again, you are going to be disappointed. But, if it makes you feel better, if I had such a fantasy world in my head, things would be handled in one or more of the ways that these things were or are handled by those historical or contemporaneous examples (you know, those that you don’t care to discuss). I guess that shows a lack of imagination on my part. Sorry about that too.
Moving right along.
My goal, so to speak, in this series of posts is to attempt to drive a stake through this stupid, stupid, stupid so-called TINA argument for Landlordism. Let me try again…
Let’s say some fool said “We can’t get rid of Android, because then cell phones won’t work”. All the non-fools chimed in with “Dude, you could just go get an Apple”. To which the fool replied: “Sure smarty-pants, so on these mystical fruit you speak off, how to I connect to my bosses VPN through an Australian ISP ?”. Of course, the non-fools just shake their heads, and shrug their shoulders.
That’s what I thought you meant when I said: “I think Keeed’s point is that there would be less housing if landlordism were overthrown” but then you felt you had to correct me, so shrug?
I don’t know what Georgeism or landlordism is. If you want to write about that instead of whining about being asked straightforward questions then go ahead.
Lots of people are hungry at least at times. The entire set of grocery stores is refusing to give them enough food partly because they want/need to make a profit. Seems quite comparable to the power of landlordism to me.
Again, I’m not advocating for Georgism, and I’m not personally a Georgist. Also, I’m not particularly any kind of expert in Georgism.
Again, my goal, so to speak, is to attempt to drive a stake through this stupid, stupid, stupid TINA so-called argument for Landlordism.
Elaborating from my last post: Android == Landlordism, Apple == Georgism. My point is that to drive a stake through a stupid, stupid, stupid so-called TINA argument for Android all I have to do is establish Apple exists. I don’t need to go into the weeds on the details regarding Apple, I don’t even need to be able to.
So far, as I mentioned, to me all it seems all you want to do is play a stupid game asking me silly fantasy questions.
However, I could be mistaken. If you are actually and genuinely interested in Georgism, we could always do a thread together titled something like “Keeed & MD learn about Geogism together”. Let me know.
If a landlord evicts a tenant for good cause unrelated to rent, that tenant can go find another apartment.
On the other hand, a landlord with too many vacancies (or non-paying tenants) can easily go down the road of her own financial demise.
And if you ask, “But what about the people getting evicted who are flat broke?” are you suggesting that they literally become wards of the property owner?
You are advocating for a specific action – everyone stop paying their rent and collectively refuse to be evicted. This is a fantasy of your own construction. Then I ask, OK, what happens next? How will this new society be structured? Not an unreasonable question. But when I try to take your own fantasy scenario to the next stage all of the sudden I’m asking silly fantasy questions.
My personal situation, I am on a 3 year assignment in a foreign country. My employer neither allows me to sell my house in home country nor buy property in my host country during the assignment. I can choose to leave my house completely empty for 3 years or rent it out. I am not a career landlord, but I would have to leave it empty under this no landlords policy which seems a huge waste.
This would also outlaw live in nannies or au pairs. Universities would not be allowed to own dormitories. These aren’t really edge cases.
Anywhere I have travelled that had a legacy of socialist housing systems had incredibly gloomy and ugly housing everywhere. I do not think we would get the same aesthetic quality or just quality in general in the available housing stock if it was all government owned. Time and time again market based systems have proven to be superior in this regard.
Maybe this is a feature not a bug to many on here. That society is more egalitarian when nice things are less available.
I see your point. I think it’s a little hard to thread the needle of wanting to ban landlordism but not capitalism (at least for essential services) generally. But I’ve lived in about 40 different houses and I don’t naturally think of a place to live as a special thing.
So in theory I could sell it, but they essentially pay my rent in Germany and I would lose that if I sold. Also they reserve the right to end the assignment early in which case I could be coming back to the states essentially homeless. They cannot prevent me from selling, but they are able to strongly discourage it via incentives and risk.
edit: obviously if they end the assignment early and I have tenants in there, I am essentially homeless as well, so it is more the free rent thing that is important
quitting the job would involve cash repayment of a lot of benefits I have received as well. This is pretty common in corporate relocations and international assignments, so this is also strongly disincentivized
Sounds like they are paying your rent because you might have an empty unrented house that you’re paying a mortgage on. If you rent it out and they pay your rent in Germany…I don’t have a problem with it, but…score!
I am, the possibility for double dipping is a huge benefit of the assignment. My point was really that society doesn’t benefit if I leave that house empty for 3 years.
OK VG, This is an excellent question. I’m happy to answer this one!
Such calls to action should always have an attainable goal, and will always be necessarily part of a much larger campaign. There is no magic here. It will take years of struggle and work and hardship. Sadly, since Landlordism at heart is, and only is, an exercise in institutionally applied violence, some of our blood will be spilled.
That attainable goal would surely be along the lines of the indefinite extension of the moratorium, and thereby the effective elimination, of violent evictions for lack of payment.
It seems obvious how completely stopping paying of rent and halting all evictions would effect the supply of low-income housing. Hard enough to get that built now, why would anyone build affordable housing if they literally can’t rent it out. And of course the working poor can’t afford to pay cash build it, and they couldn’t get a loan if the bank can’t foreclose on it.
I’m sure the rich could get their houses built, although they’ll probably need to build higher fences around their estates.
