3 ms·

Why are landlords under some special obligation to make a contribution to the general welfare any more than a plumber is, or a software engineer? That said, su

Why are landlords under some special obligation to make a contribution to the general welfare any more than a plumber is, or a software engineer? That said, surely renting a property that is unaffordable to own by the renter provides social utility though?

logfromblammo 9y ago
Because the community has agreed to honor their exclusive real property claim, even if another person might have made better use of it. Property owners do occasionally have their property seized by the community that it may be used more appropriately to the community's desires. It may be by eminent domain, or civil forfeiture, or adverse possession, or by regulatory taking, or some other means, but it is more likely to happen to those that do not actively demonstrate value to their community (perhaps in the form of financially supporting the local lawyering economy, if nothing else) than those who do not. It's a fact of existence from the Pauli Exclusion Principle all the way up to "wherever you go, there you are" that everything has to have a place to be. You can't have a general welfare without a place to put it, and wherever you put it has to be adjacent to other places. So that special obligation is basically to not abuse the inevitability of adjacency and the tyranny of distance in a way that is too obviously selfish.
- bmmayer1 9y ago
  I'm having trouble understanding your comment. The entire principle of private property ownership on which (arguably) our entire civil society and economy is based is that one may use said property as one wishes. It doesn't really matter if another person might have made "better use of it". The only opinion that matters on how the property might best be used is the person who owns it. It's not a community decision, excepting the narrow cases you outlined.
  - revelation 9y ago
    Yes, if only history could stop in 1776. Then we can all make overarching general comments on how things are and will forever be. 240 years are a joke.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Private individual ownership has never been absolute for anyone, except for those despots and monarchs with a large and loyal military. There have always been ways for a large group of people to strip an intransigent and selfish person of his property, and some of those ways don't involve murdering him in a public and humiliating way. If nothing else, a series of successful civil suits can force the transfer of real property to the plaintiffs. Eminent domain is one establishment-sanctioned way in the US, wherein the owner is forced to sell to the government. The purpose is supposedly to enable construction of public infrastructure such that private owners cannot obstruct for personal profit, but the controversial Kelo v. New London case involved the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another. If your style of ownership is a clear burden on the surrounding community, they will eventually strip you of your property. But the bar is set rather low, even for the minorities in a racist community. As long as you pay your property taxes, obey the most literal interpretation of the law, and don't allow the property to look too bad from the curb, people will generally leave you alone. So the duty of the landlord is to not be such an enormous ass that the community notices it, and comes after them. It isn't difficult, let some people can't even manage that.

logfromblammo 9y ago

Because the community has agreed to honor their exclusive real property claim, even if another person might have made better use of it. Property owners do occasionally have their property seized by the community that it may be used more appropriately to the community's desires. It may be by eminent domain, or civil forfeiture, or adverse possession, or by regulatory taking, or some other means, but it is more likely to happen to those that do not actively demonstrate value to their community (perhaps in the form of financially supporting the local lawyering economy, if nothing else) than those who do not. It's a fact of existence from the Pauli Exclusion Principle all the way up to "wherever you go, there you are" that everything has to have a place to be. You can't have a general welfare without a place to put it, and wherever you put it has to be adjacent to other places. So that special obligation is basically to not abuse the inevitability of adjacency and the tyranny of distance in a way that is too obviously selfish.

bmmayer1 9y ago
I'm having trouble understanding your comment. The entire principle of private property ownership on which (arguably) our entire civil society and economy is based is that one may use said property as one wishes. It doesn't really matter if another person might have made "better use of it". The only opinion that matters on how the property might best be used is the person who owns it. It's not a community decision, excepting the narrow cases you outlined.
- revelation 9y ago
  Yes, if only history could stop in 1776. Then we can all make overarching general comments on how things are and will forever be. 240 years are a joke.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Private individual ownership has never been absolute for anyone, except for those despots and monarchs with a large and loyal military. There have always been ways for a large group of people to strip an intransigent and selfish person of his property, and some of those ways don't involve murdering him in a public and humiliating way. If nothing else, a series of successful civil suits can force the transfer of real property to the plaintiffs. Eminent domain is one establishment-sanctioned way in the US, wherein the owner is forced to sell to the government. The purpose is supposedly to enable construction of public infrastructure such that private owners cannot obstruct for personal profit, but the controversial Kelo v. New London case involved the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another. If your style of ownership is a clear burden on the surrounding community, they will eventually strip you of your property. But the bar is set rather low, even for the minorities in a racist community. As long as you pay your property taxes, obey the most literal interpretation of the law, and don't allow the property to look too bad from the curb, people will generally leave you alone. So the duty of the landlord is to not be such an enormous ass that the community notices it, and comes after them. It isn't difficult, let some people can't even manage that.