It’s free to view on YouTube…
1 Like
Something is seriously wrong with you. Carry on. That is your like 7th post asking me to answer a question that is impossible to answer.
Lol glad you know so much about me and how little I understand philosophy. I’m literally reading a history of stoicism as we speak for what it’s worth.
Carry on.
Are you sure you want to commit to it being impossible to say how you came to believe what you’ve said you believe ITT?
Narrator: In this instance, it was worth very little.
1 Like
Ok I get it you are struggling with a simple concept. Let me help you.
We were talking about what would happen if there were no property rights. The scenario is anyone can take anybody’s home at any time.
Might is right.
I said there would be no reason to upkeep or build homes in this world.
If your pipes broke you would just take someone else’s home.
You then made, the good point, that it might be easier to fix the pipes than to face a fight for someone else’s home.
I then said there would be some threshold at which the fight would be worth the cost of repairs or upkeep.
We were having a fruitful and interesting discussion at this point.
You then totally lost your mind and made 7 posts over several days asking me to define this threshold in our completely hypothetical scenario.
I guess maybe you don’t understand that it is highly variable.
If I own a home and break my door lock and it costs me $40 to fix I’m likely going to fix it rather than fight my neighbour for his house.
If my electrical system fails and it would cost me $20k to fix maybe I fight my neighbour for his place.
But let’s say my neighbour is an old lady with no family and I don’t care about ethics or morality. I’ll just take her place.
But but what if my neighbour is a highly trained green beret with a giant arsenal and is friends with the rest of the town. Then maybe there is no number at which I would fight him for his place.
Happy now?
Perhaps more than any other poster here you seem unable to separate disagreeing with someone with hating them. You seem to literally hate everyone you disagree with even a little.
I get it you don’t like me.
No, because you are — wilfully, dishonestly — ignoring the fact that the conversation moved on. You stated that the calculus would be different for everybody. This is fine and hasn’t been contested. The idea that I don’t understand this is a fiction crafted by you to provide a veneer of justification for not answering the question its acceptance prompts, which is:
How do you know that the practice “Steal house instead of fixing” would become widespread enough to be a problem? You might protest that of course, you don’t know this, you merely believe it — so how did you come to believe it?
I don’t hate anybody here; you’re all just words on a screen lol. I find you irritating and I don’t respect you very much, because you’re pretentious, dishonest and full of unwarranted self-regard. I don’t know you personally at all.
How do I know people will respond to incentives? That is your question?
No. I can see how you might have missed it, the question was:
Note that it is a specific question about a specific set of incentives towards a specific action, and that it was you who made the assertion that this set of incentives was an issue for proponents of landlord abolition.
You are literally asking me if people will respond to incentives.
No, Clovis. If I were asking you “Will people respond to incentives?” then I would say something like
Clovis — will people respond to incentives?
Instead, I am asking you to justify the assertion you have made, which is that X set of incentives will be sufficient to produce Y response in Z number of people, where Z is some amount sufficient to make landlord abolition unworkable.
You can or you can’t justify that assertion. I don’t think anybody’s going to be fooled by you pretending not to understand the question, and I’m not sure why you’d want them to be.
Ok I get it you want to troll. Carry on.
FWIW, I think the better question is why doesn’t Flynn believe that in a society without property rights a family who feels that they have less than others would not simply take by force something they believe they deserve.
He isn’t interested in a discussion. He just wants to “dunk” on me.
Even by the standard you’ve set ITT, this is pretty jaw-dropping.
OK fools, here’s an alternate “system” you can play your stupid nit-pick the hypothetical game with.
-
People buy as many housing lotto tickets as they feel. Once every six months, there is a NBA draft type drawing… the more housing lotto tickets you buy, the better chance you get a higher pick. First lotto ticket picked, first choice in housing.
-
The money collected goes to build, maintain, and manage the housing, as well as administer the lotto and labor sub-contractors. All the actual work is sub-contracted out to for-profit sole proprietors, who must employ between 10 and 99 waged employees.
-
If, for whatever reason, a housing shortage developed, a second lotto is held. Winners, so to speak, picked at random, are summarily executed to alleviate the short fall.
-
There would be the usual picky technical rules so that effectively peeps would only be forced to move about as often as peeps actually do now in reality, even if it makes this “system” slightly less “fair” or consistent, and etc/etc/etc with all the other detail level details. This is all recorded, enforced, legislated etc/etc/etc by the same crap we got now.
Taking things by force isn’t really all that ‘simple’. If we’re still entertaining this notion of hordes of suburbanites going a-viking whenever their wallpaper peels a bit, then I wonder how the neighbours are going to take it. I also don’t consider it a likely scenario because I don’t see how it would actually work logistically.
I agree that any time force may be needed the potential belligerent group is going to assess if the plan is worth the pain/harm/death/etc. which might ensue. Which is why according to Pinker, hunter-gatherer groups probably didn’t fight each other all that much under normal conditions, since it’s easier to resettle 10 miles down river than risk losing members of your group in a fight.
As for the neighbors, are we assuming that this is a tight knit collection of families who will fight for each other? Because my understanding of anthropology is that generally it would only be kin (blood or “like family to me”) who are going to reliably take up this fight.
The closest I can imagine to this would be if a Medieval plague killed all of the wealthy people, leaving the serfs to continue to live on and farm the property themselves. But that just brings us back to the initial premise of "what if the landlords all just disappeared?
No, I don’t mean Neighbourhood Watch goes militant stuff. Just that most people don’t like to think of themselves as the kind of people who would do what’s being described, and don’t like to be thought of that way by others. It’s a minor point, but this issue has been pitched on the level of individual households just up and going to war to evict other individual households, so finding fault on that level seems legit to me.
As I’ve said, I find it difficult to see how this would operate in the way it’s been proposed. It’s hard to imagine the conversation between eg a married couple with two kids that prompts them to tool up, drive five miles and evict another family at gun-point from a nicer house, rather than just fixing the leaky roof or whatever issue there is with the property (remember, this line of argument was introduced to propose that people simply wouldn’t have an incentive to maintain their residences, as though doing so is far more trouble than stealing a house in some overwhelming number of cases).