He absolutely is though in his joe example, which started this, and his fantasy world where all renters stop paying rent.
He is not a details man, perhaps you can help me understand how that works in terms of ownership rights? If joe can simply take up residence anywhere he wants what stops anyone else from doing the same?
He gave a specific example that was not every case of someone squatting. It doesnât seem to me that he meant that to be generalized into every case when anyone ever takes up occupancy in conflict with someone else.
There are lots of ways in which ownership rights to property work. There are even significant differences from state to state and city to city in the US.
Didnât take long to reach the sophisticated rhetorical level of name calling.
Iâll explain why housing quality would be poorer and there would be less homes in your scenario.
In your ideal world you canât own a home. If you canât own it there is no incentive to invest it in. You would never want to build a new home for fear that joe will simply move in at the last minute and take up residence. You would never fix or upgrade your existing home for the same reason.
Letâs say everybody stops paying rent forever, like you want. Now who is up keeping all these homes? The state? It has to be because for the reason stated above nobody would want to invest their own time or money into them for fear joe will just take them at his will.
The population grows and people die. We need new homes. Why would someone build them?
This is why your world ends up in far few homes and of a much worse quality.
I agree. If the debate was should there be far stricter rules around eviction, greater power for renter, then I would be in board and find a discussion of the details interesting. That is not his position though. He wants all rent to stop and isnât too interested in any details of how that might work.
Everyone (but me obviously) needs to stop talking like these are absolutes. There are houses built and maintained in all kinds of systems.
So if the pipes burst, I wonât get them fixed, because Iâm worried someone will forcibly evict me?
The population grows and people die. We need new homes. Why would someone build them?
Because the State pays them to?
Great thread!
Sabo, can you illustrate how aggression goes into voluntary exchanges?
Why would you fix the pipes? Just take over another nicer home with working pipes.
I feel like it would be easier, cheaper and less dangerous to call a plumber.
There are a lot of ways in which it might work. It might just work that it doesnât change much except some small percentage of housing is squatted (ok, some slightly larger small percentage - because some already is) and the people living in it cannot be evicted while most of the market is unchanged. Like a sprinkling of Christiana everywhere.
There would be some tipping point at which it wouldnât be easier. That is the point at which property rights become important.
Hard to imagine this in an urban area - but the world is not all urban - how about people build houses because they want a place to live and their neighbors help because theyâre good neighbors and youâll help them when they need it if you can? Maybe itâs not even that hard to imagine it in an urban area.
Grunching but here is an interesting group.
https://twitter.com/moms4housing
âNo one should be homeless when homes are sitting empty. Housing is a human right. The Moms for Housing are uniting mothers, neighbors and friends to reclaim housing for the Oakland community from the big banks and real estate speculators.â
Can you define this tipping point? Because man, moving house is a fucking pain as things stand, canât but think itâs gonna be an even bigger headache if itâs an eviction and takeover by brute force. Dangerous, too. If people are under the constant threat of having their domicile taken away by randos, theyâre going to buy guns and whatnot.
Sure â Iâm not trying to confine discussion solely to States or near-indistinguishable entities. My point is only that itâs far from inconceivable that a need can be met without a profit motive to be satisfied somewhere in there.
For example, here in Alberta we have suspended evictions for the month and likely next month. That is exactly how a capitalist system, with a social safety net, should operate. We have shifted the rights to the renter temporarily because it is the right thing to do. After the pandemic is over they will shift back to the owners.
It would be just as silly to argue owners should have unfettered rights to charge anything, or treat tenants anyway they want, as it is to argue Siboâs position.
I canât define that tipping point as it would be different for all. You are right about the guns though. Siboâs world is pure âmight is rightâ.
Actually I think this is a terrible point. A person being evicted because they canât pay their rent due to something they canât control, like an illness, is the same whether it happens to just one person on a day or if it happens to a lot of people because of a pandemic. If itâs wrong to evict people because of circumstances like this, itâs wrong to evict many people in non-pandemic times.
Then what are you even talking about? What is the heuristic youâre applying to even determine that this tipping-point is within the realm of plausibility for anyone, let alone most, let alone all?
Thereâs a social policy argument to be made for bailing people out when thereâs a huge temporary problem that affects a lot of people, but itâs not a moral argument, itâs a practical argument.