Abolishing landlords -- it's well past time

[Trolly]

We seem to be re-inventing anarchocapitalism ITT.

[bbb7979]

Feels like deja vu from debating ACists, where implicit violence by police is thrown out as some kind of gotcha.

Oh no taxes are also backed by implicit violence, let’s cancel those too because it’s the thing I don’t like.

[microbet]

Good questions. For @Sabo maybe. I never said no one should ever be thrown out of a house ever. (Police should all be fired, but that’s somewhat a separate thing.)

[Formula72]

So what was wrong with evictions again?

[microbet]

No, but what is a deeper and better observation is that there’s not much difference between the status quo and anarchocapitalism. Landlords pay the cops to enforce contracts. Pretty much what the AnCaps think should happen.

[Sabo]

Well, let’s do some maths. Let’s say…

• Two comparable units of shelter sell for $Z.
• Each has a useful lifespan of X years.
• Each has $M/year in ordinary expenses (maintenance, insurance, property taxes in certain jurisdictions, etc)
• If used as a rental, each has $M2/year in additional extraordinary expenses (retention of a property management service, higher maintenance and insurance costs, etc).
• For both units of shelter, and regardless of how they are used, a ‘sinking fund’ or equivalent will be maintained to replace the unit of shelter at the end of it’s useful lifespan.
• In the relevant geographical area surrounding these units of shelter, and taking into consideration prevailing occupancy rates, the mean (as in maths average) landlord of comparable units of shelter recoup their investment in Y years.

With me so far?

[Sabo]

LMFAO. There’s no capitalism in your example. In fact, you gave a working example of socialism.

You can’t make this shiz up!

[anon10387340]

I’m totally with you, now skip to the point where “rip off pricing” comes into play? A profit is not necessarily a rip off. And I would say that the fact that renting is almost always cheaper than owning for periods of less than 5 years is pretty good proof that rental pricing is not even close to being a rip off.

[Sabo]

No. SHM. The owners of the REIT are the godfathers. The eviction judge is just another collections goon.

[Formula72]

What is wrong with violent evictions?

[anon10387340]

@Formula72

violent evictions

Dats redundant!

[Sabo]

Are you just plain stupid?

Stop trolling ass-hole.

[Formula72]

@Sabo

@Formula72

Am I correct to assume that you believe that It is still considered violence if the Goon ie was fully aware

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.

I’ve been violently evicted twice in life. It felt more like rain than an iron skillet.

[anon10387340]

I just found out that the grocery store pays less for a dozen eggs than they charge. BURN THEM DOWN

[anachronistic]

What are you talking about. By “baker” I meant “person” not “State”.

[lovemuffin]

@Trolly

We seem to be re-inventing anarchocapitalism ITT.

I wouldn’t say that. But it does seem like there’s some (implicit?) reliance on a moral argument similar to the non-aggression principle, and I think that is (philosophically, anthropologically, sociologically…) a non-starter.

[Formula72]

@lovemuffin

@Trolly

We seem to be re-inventing anarchocapitalism ITT.

I wouldn’t say that. But it does seem like there’s some (implicit?) reliance on a moral argument similar to the non-aggression principle, and I think that is (philosophically, anthropologically, sociologically…) a non-starter.

Does this mean you know what is wrong with violent evictions?

[clovis8]

It’s not even an examined moral argument. There is no desire to explore if the surface level “morality” is in fact the greater good. Assuming we define morality as greater good, which seems reasonable when talking macroeconomics.

Some people itt think capitalism is bad because there are lots of bad outcomes. It doesn’t matter that there is mountains of evidence and theory to show other options present far worse outcomes.

They seems to want some perfect system to exist that contains no bad outcomes.

[lovemuffin]

I think the argument is that the problem with eviction in general is that it is unjustifiably violent. So the problem is the lack of justification for the use of violence

[Sabo]

Sure, I’d be happy to explain.

You are hearing something different than I am saying… and of course, vise-versa.

When you hear the word ‘socialism’ you naturally think of nation-states. However, and in general, when anti-capitalists say the word ‘socialist’, we are thinking “worker control of the means of production”.

As an aside, historically the “means of production” usage comes from the 1800s. The “nation-state” usage comes from US/USSR Cold War propaganda… interestingly enough, from both sides.

So, if you’ll indulge me in explaining why I said “there was no capitalism” involved, and this was an example of “socialism” is this… and assuming the baker isn’t a waged employee/etc… the baker does have control of the means of his production. QED… that’s socialism by the definition used by peeps like me.