My heuristic is 2000 years of social science and history.
I think itās both practical and moral.
The person who was evicted because they had cancer and lost their job in 2019 is no less morally entitled to not be evicted than the person who loses their job today because of COVID.
2 Likes
Why not go for 20K lol. But OK, you donāt have an answer. Do you consider the argument youāve advanced persuasive? Note that I donāt mean ācorrectā ā obviously you think youāre right. Just do you sincerely think your last thirty minutes of posting ITT is apt to change a reasonable personās mind.
Totally agree. The scale does matter here though in terms of policy.
So you agree with the post I made that you disagreed with?
Does that mean that you think itās immoral for the cancer victim from 2019 to be evicted? Or you think itās not a moral issue, but a matter of practical public policy in both cases?
I agree. But the remedy shouldnāt be the landlord getting fucked. It should be a safety net that covers a significant portion of income for illness and disabilities. That is the least disruptive and most efficient way for us all to help take care of each other imo.
1 Like
Sure, Iām a dick. But Iām pretty much never being just a dick when I post about this kinda shiz. Iām going out of my way to not be a dick in this post.
What you are doing is a TINA (āThere Is No Alternativeā). You are asking for the exact and trivial details of ātheā alternative. You are laboring under false and unstated assumption that there is only one alternative. And, most importantly, you are under the influence of a mild form of Existential Crisis.
I spewed this up stream, but Iāll try again.
Letās say some fool said āThere was only VHS back in the video tape daysā. Well, maybe you say: āFool, donāt you remember Beta?ā. Letās imagine the fool replies: āSo there was a system for frat-houses? How many minutes could the frat boys record on timer?ā.
The fool above is also doing a TINA. Clearly, knowing the details about how Beta tapes worked isnāt necessary, or even directly relevant, to dis-prove the assertion āthat there was only Betaā. All that is needed is to demonstrate that Beta, or anything else, existed.
So Iām going to suggest, that I give you an example of a Beta here. The purpose isnāt to āagrueā that this Beta is more āgoodā or āevilā or āworksā or ādoesnāt workā/etc -vs- the pre-pandemic status-quo. Itās simply to attempt to disabuse you of the TINA idea.
Not just Landlordism, but capitalism as a whole, like any other human convention, developed in historically particular place(s) and time(s). There is a broad consensus that capitalism arose in England in the early 1600s. Here is a relevant Wikipedia page for background readingā¦
Just to tie this all together: the Beta here is the entire pre-capitalist world.
I actually think itās possible thereās space for both systems, but sure, lose your income and you get a Section 8 voucher that your landlord has to accept is pretty good policy in many places.
You ninja edited your post 
Eviction isnāt immoral. Allowing people to be homeless is immoral.
Itās a moral issue that nobody should be left homeless for getting sick, anytime, pandemic or not. Itās a practical issue that this is even more true now when we are talking about millions of people at the same time.
Doesnāt have to be done with section 8 vouchers, can just be sort of like disability insurance but provided by the state and expanded to a broader scope.
Of course there could be other mechanisms, but Section 8 is a very good program - just not well enough funded. Tenant pays 30% of their income. Landlord receives the balance from the government.
I get it you think capitalism is bad. Itās in your very badge. What you donāt seem too interested in doing is discussing the specifics of how it would be replaced. You just keep making sweeping policy pronouncements about how the world should be.
As I pointed out earlier, that is both very easy and very boring.
The interesting part is the how.
Tenant pays 30% of their income.
That seems like a problem when the tenants income goes to zero for what would be a qualifying disability under my program. Jbro for prez 2024.
Well, people are left homeless for such things all the time. The examples @Sabo keeps giving are about people who canāt pay and are made homeless.
Right so as has already been pointed out the solution isnāt abolishing ownership rights. Itās strengthening the safety net.
Why? As I mentioned before I had Section 8 tenants who paid 1/3 of their income and one tenantās portion was $8 (as I mentioned I didnāt take the $8.). If their income is $0, they pay $0.
Iām not sure itās wise for you to be talking about failing to discuss specifics and only making sweeping pronouncements and whatnot just right currently. Friendly advice.
Oh i see. I was thinking section 8 paid 70% and tenant paid 30%. Anyway, I would rather just replace the income and leave the agency for funds distribution in the tenants hands.
Ok, but what do you do in the meantime is also kind of what @Sabo is talking about. Heās talking about the real world where poor people face eviction and the threat of living in the street and talking about doing something about it now for these real people, not waiting a generation or two or forever.