Publicly traded companies still own a relatively small minority of rental housing at least in the US. At some point in the pre pandemic legal system, after non payment of rent, the landlord formally process a complaint through the legal system and the courts make a judgement on the eviction that the landlord is entitled to repossess the property. The coercive physical act only occurs if the tenant refuses to vacate on his own in compliance with the court’s decision on who has a right to possess the residence.
I guess your point is that tenants are less likely to follow the law regarding posession of the house and thus the pre-pandemic system requires more intervention by law enforcement officers, maybe but I am not so sure if we are imagining a future world where someone owns a house and is still somehow accountable for it but can basically never expect to repossess it or collect rent from it. I think they are somehow going to try creative ways to acheive a constructive eviction and eventually need phyical coercion to just drop it.
That’s not what the scorecard is trying to tell you. It’s not concerned with what “is moral”, it’s only concerned with what “is”.
As I’ve mentioned several times, everyone inside of the privacy of their own pretty little head gets to choose what is “moral” to them… just like everyone gets to choose what their favorite flavor of ice cream is.
Some people might choose to weigh violence into their “moral calculus”. For them, they’d need to know the what “is” to complete their “calculations”. So the scoreboard entry regarding violence would be of some use to them.
Some people might not GAF about violence. For them the scoreboard entry regarding violence simply isn’t relevant.
The only reason to get rid of the scoreboard entry regarding violence entirely is if nobody at all GAF about violence. I don’t believe that’s the case.
There are two main reasons why there are homeless people. Not enough charity (government or private) and not enough freedom.
This is what it looks like when people who have almost no money are almost free to build housing and not have it destroyed by the police every few months. (still, it’s not great because they aren’t really secure)
Ok, maybe that’s not great, but here’s what it looks like when you have no money and there’s no freedom.
I am onboard with the government as a housing provider of last resort or UBI. Both would be better solutions than just saying we’re never going to allow anyone to be evicted for nonpayment
Probably. Also letting people build homes would be cool.
Sabo can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think he’s concerned about the people who are alive now who face eviction and many many more will be in that position soon and not wanting to wait a few generations for UBI or Section 8 for everyone who wants it.
That’s just your opinion man. But leaving that beside… let’s take a little trip to Birmingham.
… direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension”… we see the need… to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths… to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long [have we] been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
If your priority was to make the UBI, you should be in favor of the status-quo, and be against the lifting of the moratorium.
Right now, there’s a hella lot of tension. Right now, IYO opinion, the landlords have so much tension that they just might create the largest crime wave in the history of history. Right now, I have so much tension, that I’m looking forward to dancing with the robo-cops again. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only Unstucker who is looking to fill out that dance card.
Right now, a “a community which has constantly refused to negotiate”, the landlords, is being “forced to confront the issue”. Right now, this tragic virus has created “a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation”. Right now, the we got some leverage. Right now… (to be continued)
Right now, we got something the landlords want… those 007-like passes to violently rampage through civil society to satiate their own greed. And the capitalists got things we want, like UBI.
So, sing it along with me… “Voluntary exchange is always mutually beneficial”, yada, yada, yada… yes we are talking “free” market fundamentals here. The basis of life itself… according the LOL-bertarians. Ayn Rand would be proud. It’d obviously be mutually beneficial for us trade those 007-like passes -for- UBI.
OTOH, by pissing away our leverage, nothing will change. We’ll be back right where we were before… the landlords, along with the rest of the capitalists… would have no reason to negotiate with us at all. They would have no reason to compromise. They would no have no reason to even listen to us. There would be no effort to dialogue by the capitalists. We’d be back to living in monologue. And the chance of doing the UBI would be back to what it was before too… an integer between -1 and 1.
‘*’: I split the post up, because I couldn’t bring myself to quote Letter from Birmingham Jail in the same post I’m quoting that libertarian garbage.
Violent contract enforcement is violent. WTF BBQ ???/? Are you fucking stupid?
I’m not “defining” anything.
I’m not declaring any victory. That doesn’t even make sense. The rubber band snapping back is a defeat for everyone… the liberals, the non-liberals, the lurkers, and god herself under the ocean.
I am making no such argument. WTF BBQ ???/? Are you even reading this thread?
Again with this asking me to google things for you that you could just as easily google for yourself. Fuck you Troll !!!1!
I have no idea because I don’t have to change any locks if I have the option to use an eviction notice. You want to get rid of eviction notices because you hate cops and violence. Cool I’m down with that. Can I change the locks to my house please?
See… isn’t it easier to just google your own shiz yourself than to try to cajole random duders on the interwebs to google your shiz for you? And… I proly would have just went ahead and answered your Q for you (I knew the answer without google)… but all that childish crap about declaring victory/etc/etc put me off. Maybe consider not being a trolling asshole when you are asking for a favor. SMH.
Well, we seem to have reached another lull… so what better time to make more fun of Mr.Econ smarty-pants.
Back when the history department was called “current events”, UC paid me to tutor that dismal pseudo science. And like other majors that catered to the relatively stupid, young Mr.Econs smarty-pants were always amazed I could ace their midterms as a prop bet. Especially considering I had only ever taken Econ 101*.
I mainly tutored math or hacking, but I was also expected to cover the hard sciences (which was a whole different story, as I had only taken freshman physics, and never took a lab), and for some inexplicable reason, the young Mr.Econ smarty-pants. For these fools, who needed a little or a lot of help… I could give them about ten bullet points on a page, and they were good to go.
‘*’: Technically it was Econ 1. I also took Econ 4, but that was actually Intro to Accounting.
Let’s see…
For no good reason, Econ has it’s own “baby talk” names that nobody else uses. Here’s a list. You are just going to have to memorize it. Memorizing random lists of gibberish is a skill. Let’s work on it.
Like the proverbial Eskimos with snow, Econ also has about ~400 “baby talk” words for theft. Assume a “baby talk” name not on the list means theft. It’ll quickly become obvious if that’s not the case.
Yes, it takes Calculus to derive the Meaning of Life™. But to use the FVM, all you need to know is how to use a calculator. Don’t worry about Calculus.
You should quickly be able to separate the homework/quiz/test Qs into four categories: vocabulary Qs, 2 equation/2 unknowns, word problems which will always be 2eq/2un, and (only with Econ) indoctrination Qs.
Do them in this order: Vocabulary Qs (use the list, the rest mean theft) & Indoctrination Qs (the answer is always capitalism “good”, democracy “good”, theft “good”, socialism/Communism “bad”) first.
Next, set up the word problems as their underlying 2eq/2un… but do not solve them. Setting up word problems is a separate skill than solving them. Let’s work on setting them up.
Finally, solve all the 2eq/2un. That’s the one fundamental skill you need to have down cold. Let’s make sure you do.
And remember… anytime someone says “more efficient”… ask yourself “more efficient for who” (This last point doesn’t have anything to do with passing tests, but it just happens to be the 2nd best one-liner I ever heard a prof deliver in college).
I wasn’t asking for a favor. I was assuming that we were talking about how things ought to be in a thread about banning landlords and evictions, not how things are. But you keep bouncing back and forth as part of your rhetorical tactics.
No. I’ve already explained this shiz. I’m not going to keep repeating myself. OK, sigh… I’ll try one more time.
The only thing I’m ‘arguing’ for is conserving the status-quo as of 8:00pm pdt April 28 2020, in California if it matters. So if you ask me about details regarding what that might be like… you are asking me about details of how here & now actually are. Which, as I’ve mentioned, you can google yourself.
If you want to ‘argue’ against me, you’d need to (a) pick a different scenario, and (b) we’d have to agree on some metrics. So… do you indeed want to ‘argue’ against me? If so… make with the picking of your alternate scenario, and make with the nominating of some metrics.
If you don’t want to ‘argue’ against me, that’s just fine too. We can continue on with our monkey games, or whatever you wanna call what’s going on now. I’m cool either way. But, once again, I’m not going to ‘argue’ against myself ITT. I’m not going to stake out two distinct scenarios, I’m not going to choose a buncha metrics to evaluate those two scenarios by, I’m not going to construct ‘arguments’ for both scenarios, I’m not going to make rebuttals to those ‘arguments’ for both scenarios, and I’m not going to declare myself the “winner” -or- declare myself the “winner”.
Cliffs: to ‘argue’ there has to be at least two ‘sides’. I’ve staked out my ‘side’ already. That’s as far as we’ve gotten in like ~140,000 posts.
