Am I correct to assume that you believe that It is still considered violence if the Goonie was fully aware that he entered an agreement that if he didn’t pay that the Sheriff would throw him as well as his belongings out on the street? Is this a fair starting point?
1 Like
Have you explained what a non-violent eviction looks like yet?
Because if it involves just asking nicely until they comply… I’m not sure where we go from there.
“Please sir, will you pay us?”
“I will take your request into consideration. But also, no, I will not.”
" =( "
No. And you gotta point. Saying ‘violent evictions’ is just as redundant as saying ‘wet water’.
That usage is just a way to remind all the folks here in Unstuckland that we aren’t really talking about this lol-tastical “urban planning” shiz at all… we’re really, and only, talking about the institutionalized use of violence.
Got it, so you have no input on an actual alternative that isn’t simply, “Don’t do the thing I don’t like.”
If it were me in your position, they’d accuse me of just trolling and call for bans. Thing is, I’m never in your position. I will at least put myself out there and offer something even when I know won’t play well to the crowd.
1 Like
Well, it’s not a matter of the ‘believe’. That gave me a chuckle.
Raining is a term of description. Violence is also a term of description. For example, the branding of a person or animal with a hot iron is a violent act. Why the act being described came to be doesn’t change anything. The branding of a slave is an act of violence. An artist branding a geek, who is into that kinda body art, is also performing a violent act. Water falling out of the sky, when caused by a natural storm, is described as raining. Water falling out of the sky, when caused by cloud seeding, is also described as raining.
Wait micro assured me in your “revolution” there would still be evictions, just not violent ones. You know like credit report black marks and such.
1 Like
Remember when Lenin did away with land ownership and it went really well, with no issues for 50 years?
/sarcasm
2 Likes
Jeez you guys with this parsing of the violence.
All law and contract enforcement is backed ultimately by violence. The state is the organ of our society with the monopoly on legitimate violence. ‘violent eviction’ is redundant, its like, idk, feline cat.
Surely the morality of the thing rests on more than whether the violence is explicit or implicit?
2 Likes
That’s not what I said. This is what I said, which was correct at the time.
“He never said that and I don’t think he thinks it’s true - at least not necessarily true.”
No. Far more of a stretch to say contracts are backed by violence. Certainly not all of them. You generally cannot have any performance of a contract enforced. If you don’t leave when evicted you’re gonna get dragged out dead or alive. And that happens.
1 Like
Well, surely such “morality” doesn’t rest on legality either. Well, I’d hope peeps who worry about this so-called “morality” shiz would say so. Like, sharecropping was legal, then it wasn’t in the US… does this so-called “morality” change when the laws are changed, or is sharecropping always non-“moral” regardless of the laws, or has sharecropping always been “moral”, and now we got “governmental interference” in the US… oh no!
As an digression: as someone who has a Philosophy degree, I find this naive, almost child-like, discussion of the “moral” to be quite amusing. FYI: Before mathematical Calculus was introduced, nobody imagined there exists this lol-tastical “moral calculus” than ranks everything imaginable on a continuous linear scale of “good” to “evil”. Before computers were invented, nobody imagined there was this lol-tastical determinate “moral” algorithm that takes “moral” inputs, and “computes” a binary output result of “good” or “evil”. Basically… garbage-in-garbage-out. End of digression.
Well, lots of folks feel that a systematic difference in prices, charged to different groups of people, for the same product or service, is a human rights violation… and as such their “moral computer” spits out a result of “evil”. I’ll give a couple of examples: (a) a hypothetical day spa charging $40/hr for LGBTQ folk, and $20/hr for anyone else; (b) the historical example of the segregated lunch counters in the US. Black folk were generally served food at these locations, but they were required to get it to-go, and most importantly to the capitalists in charge, they had to pay a rip-off price for a completely unneeded to-go box.
Well, Landlordism is the same exact kinda situation. A group of people (renting folk) are charged a rip-off price for the same exact product (shelter) as other folks. Bottom line: like all forms of capitalism, Landlordism is an obvious and egregious human rights violation. Just that simple.
So, how does that little fact “compute” with peeps “moral calculus” ???/?
1 Like
These chaps don’t believe in state violence. Hopefully, their kids never get abducted and require police assistance!
In many cases it’s cheaper to rent than own, and in almost every case owning is only a better choice if planning to stay at least 5 years or more like 10.
So “rip off price” seems misleading at best.
1 Like
The word “shelter” is doing a lot of work in this post, comrade.
A baker makes and sells bread.
People like his bread.
He opens a bread shop and makes money.
He should be tried in The Hague.
1 Like
Lol missed that.
Punishing a thief is tantamount to punishing someone based on their sexual orientation or race. I didn’t know criminals were a protected class. Someone alert RBG!!
To the extent they are enforced by the state, they are. Courts enforce civil penalties etc. Sherriffs enforcing an eviction is an example of the state enforcing a private contract.
1 Like
Maybe sometimes, maybe only in some cases. For the most part the state either doesn’t enforce a contract because performance cannot be enforced or in the end the state can only electronically take funds from your bank or garnish wages. You could call those actions violent I guess, but no cops or guns involved.
And eviction is like when the mob enforces a contract.
And I’m not even saying it should never happen. I’m just being honest about both sides here.