Guys, do not give Ins0 any ideas FFS.
LOL if you think this never occurred to Inso0.
Old. Disturbing as fuck. The âhappyâ ending was that he basically made her his live in sex slave.
Iâm assuming this is a %110 accurate synopsis of the thread.
1 Like
Donât you put your sad lonely neckbeard mojo on me.
Iâm on year 18 of marital bliss.
How many years you on of being an insufferable douchebag?
None, as it turns out.
Iâve had one or two clients bring that up (pre-pandemic), so it does happen, but it doesnât seem to be as common as PornHub appears to believe.
Striving to keep good relationships with tenants helps in times like these. Just voluntarily contacting them to ask how things are with the house or if anything looks like it needs some attention lets that person know that youâre both willing to fix and that you care about how they treat your house.
I have only one tenant and we talked at length about how we were holding up through this ordeal and we were both upfront with each other. If we didnât get a long, Iâd be worse off for sure.
Said this before. Id guess around 90% of the housing in my county was created by owners at one time or another. The landlords just rent homes that were built by someone one else for the most part.
That landlord is pretty dumb. Yikes.
In general, itâs more likeâŚ
ACer: Landlordism âcreatesâ housing/urban planning/etc/etc !!!1! Roof Rodz/âvoluntaryâ slavery/etc/etc !!!1!
Liberals: Ha, ha stupid ACers, LOL at Roof Rodz !!!1!
ACers: <gibberish âargumentsâ and just plain gibberish>
Sabo: Ha, ha stupid Liberals, believing that Landlordisn âcreatesâ anything but misery is just as LOL-worthy, actually even more so, than believing in Roof Rodz.
Liberals: <gibberish âargumentsâ and just plain gibberish>
Huh ?
There was nothing easy, or quick, about organizing any so-called âfreeâ market. According to todayâs Wikipedia, in England, the process of enclosure started in the 13th century, was common by the 16th century, and was largely completed by the 19th century. And⌠it was certainly wasnât âless organizedâ compared to than anything else I can imagine, it took the British Empire to enforce, arguably the biggest empire in the world.
Thatâs a sunk cost though.
A comparison of the world as it is with a though experiment:
There were 16500 units of housing built last year in the city of Los Angeles. For the most part, a developer, perhaps with the agreement of partners and investors, put up money to give to workers to build those units and then the developers sold or rented those properties. The developers could have made or lost money. They may have built superfluous/useless housing. They may have failed to meet the demand for housing.
Thought experiment: Los Angeles has or clears enough land for people to self-organize and building housing units. They have to follow building codes and get inspections. Iâd like to think that people could organize and raise money to buy material and build this themselves or pay builders while they act as developers - but they get the right to occupy the housing they develop. I think itâs theoretically possible. And, maybe it could happen with 16500 units a year in Los Angeles, but I dunno. Seems like an empirical question. I wonder at the ability to organize enough people to work cooperatively to do all of that - at least with the human beings we currently have, raised in this culture.
Whether or not tenants in an already built apartment building could form an association to manage and maintain the building is a much different question - and obviously it would be much easier.
There is sunk cost -and- ongoing cost.
In the US, the sunk cost was genocide on native folk, the ongoing cost is the cost of the US government. No form of capitalism is a âstable state of natureâ. Instead, all forms of capitalism must needs be constantly forced into existence by institutionalized violence. If general, goons and their gear are expensive.
OK, sure. This is one of those things that just seem so completely obvious to me that itâs hard for me to imagine what to say.
Iâll start here, maybe this is whatâs confusing. What I really meant to say is thisâŚ
Under Landlordism, structural homelessness maximizes profits.
I donât disagree with that at all.
Sure, but what if the argument is not between Anarcho-capitalism and real Anarchism, but between a Western European style social welfare state and Anarchism? What if profit is not maximized? What if, like Austria or something, the state (or someone else) provides housing as a safety net and the bulk of the housing is part of a market that includes buying, selling and renting?