Lol. He’s a very intelligent person who has thought about and discussed these things for many years. He may be somewhat difficult to understand at times, but give him more credit and be more humble.
If he would give one specific I would give him credit. Perhaps he is assuming specifics if he a reputation. I don’t know him at alll
LOL no. It’s the other way around.
Uh, there’s a ton of alternatives. And there’s no hurry on folks deciding which one(s) they want. But bottom line…
All systems that require institutional violence and gratuitous homelessness <<<< all systems that do not require such atrocities. Just that simple.
lol
No. I have no idea what you are asking.
Are you imagining someone disagrees with this?
You are disagreeing with this.
2 Likes
Really? I bet Inso understands the violence inherent in the system.
I don’t understand your point about inso?
Yes there is violence in the system. But is it more than the alternative. That’s been the question all day.
A world without property rights where “might is right” is far more violent.
1 Like
No I’m not. I’m saying you are wrong that a world without rent and property rights is less violent.
Property ownership, backed by law, dramatically reduces violence in a society.
1 Like
I don’t think clovis is disagreeing with the premise that eviction requires (the threat of) violence. When he says that no one disagrees that a system without violence and homelessness is better than one with those two traits, I’m imagining his point is more that the disagreement centers around whether or not such a system without either really exists, at least on the scale of nation states. Bearing in mind that “violence” means coercion by force if necessary, in the same way that all legal enforcement comes with such an implied threat of violence. But not that all such systems are equally violent or that any arbitrary amount of violence is justifiable…
2 Likes
Dude, maybe you’re multi-tasking and not giving this enough attention, but you’re completely misstating what @Sabo is saying and your posts are contradicting themselves.
I am actually playing poker at the same time so it is possible.
I don’t see how I am contradicting myself though? I may be misunderstanding sibo though.
1 Like
I think @Sabo’s plan, and he has put forth a plan, would work fine if someone could manage to get 5% of the people it would benefit the most on board and then maybe 30% of those people willing to do something to keep it from sucking. That would be harder than getting rotating mods on Unstuck though.
Please correct me if I misstate his plan
- renters no longer pay rent, ever
- landlords stop existing
- nobody can be evicted for lack of payment (although I’m not sure who they are paying?)
- this somehow has no effect on people who own their own homes
- somebody, although he hasn’t said, owns and maintains the previously rented homes. I assume government?
Am I missing something?
I confess that following the attempts at community governance and organizing at Unstuck have made me a little more conservative about preserving functioning political institutions, or about the possibility of radical change leading to mostly positive outcomes.
That’s not intended to be a jab at anyone. I thought a lot of the ideas were really cool. I would like to live in your ideal world in particular. And I know that a poker forum offshoot is not really a perfect microcosm. But it is something. It’s somewhat surprising how hard it really is to organize people.
1 Like
1 for 5 correct. Perhaps 2 for 5 if one is very lenient.
I’m not being facetious here. I genuinely don’t know which 1.5 I got right.
It’s certainly easier if you just delete all the opposing views like on your shithole site.
4 Likes
-
He never said that and I don’t think he thinks it’s true - at least not necessarily true.
-
Same thing as #1 - like literally right?
-
I counted this as correct, though it’s not perfectly so. He said no violent evictions. That doesn’t mean no evictions and yeah, a landlord could get an eviction order and if you don’t leave it could go on your credit report or you could get a judgement against you and that would work in a lot of cases.
-
He explicitly speculated about effects that it could have on people who own homes - or at least people who would like to buy homes.
-
This is the partial credit, though it depends on how you understand the word “owns”. And, I’m sure he doesn’t mean the government as far as maintenance, though again, that may depend on how you understand the world “government”.
I think like 1/5 maybe is your score, with .8 on #3 and .2 on #5.