3 ms·

> They offer the service of providing limited-term accommodation with no assumption of liability for regular, small payments. Contrast this to owning a house/co

> They offer the service of providing limited-term accommodation with no assumption of liability for regular, small payments. Contrast this to owning a house/condo, where the owner has an indefinite right to the property, but assumes liability (e.g. mortgage debt, property taxes) and/or plunks down a very large amount of cash all at once. This presents a false dichotomy in my view. If a property is paid for, there's no emergent liability set upon the owner that isn't also set by the state (which grants them absentee property title in the first place). All of the market mechanisms that incentivize transformation, maintenance, and occupation of land can exist without recognizing absentee title as legitimate, enabling people to occupy spaces they don't own without having to pay a rentier in perpetuity.

kyboren 7y ago
> If a property is paid for, there's no emergent liability set upon the owner that isn't also set by the state (which grants them absentee property title in the first place). I mostly agree here, although there is an argument that certain torts against property owners are not really "set by the state" except that they recognize that without official codification and means of redress, mob justice or personal vengeance might proliferate. > All of the market mechanisms that incentivize transformation, maintenance, and occupation of land can exist without recognizing absentee title as legitimate, enabling people to occupy spaces they don't own without having to pay a rentier in perpetuity. I'm not clear exactly what you're arguing here: The government could just own all land but allow anyone to build on it and occupy it indefinitely for free? Or nobody can own land they do not reside in? There are so, so many problems here. How do you resolve disputes between rival claimants to a building? How exactly does one move to a new place-do they sell the house? So they retain ownership of the improvements, but not the land? If there is no formal ownership, how are property taxes assessed? Do they just go away? Are they based only on improvements? If we can still own improvements, but only one per person and a person must reside on the property to own it, people will still need an improvement to live in, and they will still have to either buy one or rent one, changing nothing. If we can't own improvements we don't live in, well, who will be building new apartments and condos? You will end up with a huge market inefficiency, with lots of low-capital people with demand for housing and lots of capital owners who could theoretically supply that demand by building commercial residential property but will not because they legally cannot own and profit from any construction.
- hi_im_miles 7y ago
  > How do you resolve disputes between rival claimants to a building? What I am envisioning here is a world where abandoning a property grants rights to the next person to occupy it, rather than allowing the original proprietor to act as a permanent parasitic middleman between maintenance and occupants. In the case of conflict, I would imagine it would carry out similarly to how all disputes get resolved. With a state you can navigate through a legal system, and without one you have market solutions such as Coasian bargaining, social sanction, arbitration, etc. This doesn't mean that someone gets to sleep in your bed if you haven't used it since you woke up, but approaching these kinds of problems require recognizing property as the dynamic and fluid social relationship that it is. How do you deal with a family member eating your leftovers in the fridge? > If we can't own improvements we don't live in, well, who will be building new apartments and condos? You will end up with a huge market inefficiency, with lots of low-capital people with demand for housing and lots of capital owners who could theoretically supply that demand by building commercial residential property but will not because they legally cannot own and profit from any construction. I don't buy this. It doesn't follow that eliminating one vector for rent-seeking eliminates all incentive to satisfy demand, as there is still profit to be made from production!

kyboren 7y ago

> If a property is paid for, there's no emergent liability set upon the owner that isn't also set by the state (which grants them absentee property title in the first place). I mostly agree here, although there is an argument that certain torts against property owners are not really "set by the state" except that they recognize that without official codification and means of redress, mob justice or personal vengeance might proliferate. > All of the market mechanisms that incentivize transformation, maintenance, and occupation of land can exist without recognizing absentee title as legitimate, enabling people to occupy spaces they don't own without having to pay a rentier in perpetuity. I'm not clear exactly what you're arguing here: The government could just own all land but allow anyone to build on it and occupy it indefinitely for free? Or nobody can own land they do not reside in? There are so, so many problems here. How do you resolve disputes between rival claimants to a building? How exactly does one move to a new place-do they sell the house? So they retain ownership of the improvements, but not the land? If there is no formal ownership, how are property taxes assessed? Do they just go away? Are they based only on improvements? If we can still own improvements, but only one per person and a person must reside on the property to own it, people will still need an improvement to live in, and they will still have to either buy one or rent one, changing nothing. If we can't own improvements we don't live in, well, who will be building new apartments and condos? You will end up with a huge market inefficiency, with lots of low-capital people with demand for housing and lots of capital owners who could theoretically supply that demand by building commercial residential property but will not because they legally cannot own and profit from any construction.

hi_im_miles 7y ago
> How do you resolve disputes between rival claimants to a building? What I am envisioning here is a world where abandoning a property grants rights to the next person to occupy it, rather than allowing the original proprietor to act as a permanent parasitic middleman between maintenance and occupants. In the case of conflict, I would imagine it would carry out similarly to how all disputes get resolved. With a state you can navigate through a legal system, and without one you have market solutions such as Coasian bargaining, social sanction, arbitration, etc. This doesn't mean that someone gets to sleep in your bed if you haven't used it since you woke up, but approaching these kinds of problems require recognizing property as the dynamic and fluid social relationship that it is. How do you deal with a family member eating your leftovers in the fridge? > If we can't own improvements we don't live in, well, who will be building new apartments and condos? You will end up with a huge market inefficiency, with lots of low-capital people with demand for housing and lots of capital owners who could theoretically supply that demand by building commercial residential property but will not because they legally cannot own and profit from any construction. I don't buy this. It doesn't follow that eliminating one vector for rent-seeking eliminates all incentive to satisfy demand, as there is still profit to be made from production!