At least for a long time and to some degree almost all private residences were publicly owned in Singapore. I’m sure I’m missing something there, but I don’t see why some large class of objects/land can be unownable while other classes are ownable.
I know Cuba has made a lot of strides with healthcare and education.
However, Im not an expert on their economic system–do they allow people to own their own land and rent it out to others?
You keep going on and on about passion plays and using other silly hyperbolic language.
Tell us, with details, how this overthrow of the system will work. All renters refuse to pay rent from here on out.
What next?
Do people paying a mortgage stop paying too?
Do businesses stop paying rent?
What if I like your place more than mine? Neither of us is paying and we have stopped letting the government enforce ownership rights. Why can’t I just kick you out by force?
Dunno. What I have heard is that most people at least in the cities live in government owned apartments and are not evicted when they can’t pay rent. It may well be different in the countryside.
All of these issues are quite solvable and have been solved in different ways in different places, whether that’s like Cuba or like in Spain during the anarchist revolution or by aboriginal groups.
The issue that I think @Sabo is not facing in regards to the future is not that there would be no housing in a system without capitalism and violent evictions, but that there would be less and it would be lower quality. That’s not an unlivable situation. People in Cuba get housing. People in the mountains of Zomia get housing. But, they get less and inferior housing and they have problems and a lot of people who are renters would prefer what we have here now.
Liberals would like to increase the percentage of Cuban style housing.
Are you suggesting that Singapore is a mostly capitalistic system? I don’t believe that Singapore is a mostly capitalistic system now, and doubt it was then. (But I don’t really know for sure.)
All of those places acknowledge ownership rights, whether derived from the state or capitalism.
Well, as has been pointed out, maybe you should actually read the thread before posting.
If you had read the thread, you might notice that I haven’t proposed any “desired rules”. I’m over-joyed with the recent change in the rules violently enforced upon us: no more evictions. So I’m relatively happy with the status-quo.
You, OTOH, want to change our current status-quo. So, it’s really up to you to spell out why such a change in the status-quo would be a “good” thing.
Here, I’ll get you started… I, @clovis8, feel that renting folk should not only allow, but joyfully embrace, the resumption of violent evictions upon themselves, and the resumption of the gratuitous reduction to homelessness upon their families, because _______________________________.
Yes. Singapore is mostly capitalist and has been for a long time. In many ways one of the most capitalistic in the world. (#2 on the Index of Economic Freedom)
Lol ok you want a wholesale restructuring of the economic system but aren’t too interested in the details of how that might work.
Very brave stance!
I’ll play too, I want everyone on earth to never be hungry, be free of all conflict and oppression, to never experience war and to all live their absolute maximum happy lives.
Look what a good person I am.
singapore has a homeless population. Simple state ownership of property doesn’t solve that.
This thread is proof that a lot of posters on this board aren’t any wiser or self reflective than right wing CHUD’s. The only reason why you don’t look as stupid as them is that you haven’t been in power as recently and haven’t had the opportunity to get the stupider shit you want done.
Being a smart person means seeing something you want not work, figuring out why it doesn’t work, fixing it, and trying again. A lot of people ITT see something go wrong and immediately blame the other tribe for it and demand to do it again exactly the same way. This is how you waste good opportunities to change things for the better.
There are good things and bad things about socialism. There are good things and bad things about capitalism. There is absolutely no reason to repeat the mistakes of the past exactly the same way. We should all be looking for the best practices, regardless of source, in an attempt to create something newer and better than what came before. The inability to do this is why idealists are terrible full stop.
A lot of you see a problem and say ‘it shouldn’t that way so with my magic wand I’m going to make it illegal’. You do this without stopping to figure out why it is that way. You can’t actually fix a problem until you understand why it is the way it is. It isn’t that way ‘because landlords are evil’ it’s that way because something is giving landlords reasons to be evil. You fix the cause of the problem to fix a problem, not the manifestation of the problem. Root causes matter, symptoms do not. If you fix a problem and leave the root cause all you do is move the problem somewhere else… and rest assured it absolutely will move somewhere else, and usually be even worse.
OK, I’ll address it. The whole premise is a buncha non-sense… obvious non-sense.
I don’t know why anyone would imagine something like this. I really can’t imagine why you, in particular, are repeating it.
However, if somebody wants to flesh out a so-called “argument” about why they’d imagine such a silly premise, I’d be happy to point out that said “argument” is just an exercise in begging the question… and a pathetic one at that.
Umm, you didn’t address it in any way. Calling it nonsense isn’t addressing it.
By “would it be ok” I mean would it be hypothetically legal within the rules of your society? Since we are fundamentally changing a lot of societies rules I am trying to understand in a practical sense how society would function.
Housing is an unavoidably scarce and unequal resource, especially housing in a good location. I am trying to understand how in our post eviction world would we as a society distribute this resource going forward in a way that is practical and doesn’t cause more evils than the current system?
1 Like
If those are all forms of ownership then @Sabo is not suggesting the elimination of ownership rights.
Maybe if you believe the Heritage Foundation.
My thinking is more aligned with this:
Sorry if People’s Policy Project is a bad egg. I honestly have no idea, and can only say I agree with the point of view expressed in that one article. I do know that Heritage Foundation can go fuck themselves.
1 Like
Dude, I can’t address an “argument” that hasn’t been made.
All we got so far is this assertion “X is true”… you know, that assertion I characterized as “silly”. Nobody has done a “X is true because Y,Z/etc”. I doubt any of you fools will.
But IDK, I’ve been wrong before. I was just pointing out that I know, from years of experience, that if any of you fools actually do give it try, the so-called “argument” will most likely be in the form of begging-the-question.
I’m not suggesting there would be less and lower quality housing - more that I don’t know. Maybe there would be. There’s lots of historical precedent for different ways in which housing has been built and how it is decided who gets to occupy it. I think the median and mean housing may well be best in a violent state capitalist system - even if it is morally wrong - and even if the results are that many people have an unnecessary and harmfully large amount of housing.
I mean how would you know, you still haven’t fucking read it.