3 ms·

Well now we can't pass up the opportunity to hear about this. How would that one work? The landlords bit?

thomastjeffery 6y ago
Well, you see, landlords are a classic edge case of property rights and unregulated Capitalism. Capitalism is praised as a motivator for people to contribute to society with the promise of fiscal returns. Landlords make zero contribution, while attaining huge returns. Abolishing landlords would accomplish one of Marx's most significant goals without completely throwing out property rights and capitalism. > How would that one work? Well, like any implementation, that's up for discussion. The general idea is that we would remove the ability for landlords to charge rent. Landlords would have an explicit infringement on their property rights. They would no longer have the right to demand recurring payment from occupants of their properties. They would have restrictions of their ability to evict tenants. Of course, the implementation is where this idea gets contentious. Are landlords allowed to evict tenants who destroy property? Do landlords even own property anymore, or is it explicitly given to tenants? What about multi-dwelling properties? Who owns the furnace in an apartment complex? Do we create a third-party authority? Can any of this be accomplished without full-fledged Communism? Most of the complications lie in the change from status quo. It's pretty complicated to decide who owns property that is already owned by landlords, but it's pretty straightforward to make it illegal to enter new rental contracts. I agree that simply throwing out the words "abolish landlords" trivializes a lot, but it's still an idea worth exploring. What we have now isn't inherently better. It's a pretty obvious failing. People are homeless while homes lie vacant. People are inheriting huge swaths of property, making wealth and power, then turning that power toward policy that benefits them. These are real problems, and they deserve attention.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  Sorry if I haven't heard enough of this crazy talk yet to understand it. You're saying that residential property gets a special restriction on how people who own something are able to use it or enter into agreements on how they can charge others for the use of it? Who occupies a house then? Only the owner?
  - thomastjeffery 6y ago
    > Sorry if I haven't heard enough of this crazy talk yet to understand it. I get that this proposal is a significant change from the status quo. That's the point. The status quo has some glaring issues. I understand it's difficult to take proposals for big changes seriously, but does that mean we should not take the problems of our current system seriously? > You're saying that residential property gets a special restriction on how people who own something are able to use it or enter into agreements on how they can charge others for the use of it? Yes. Specifically, no one can enter an agreement where housing can be rented. The core idea is that housing can be owned and sold, just that it can't be rented. There can be some discussion as to whether short term contracts like hotels could be allowed, but they would have to be regulated to prevent abuse. The only question left is what to do about extant rental contracts. > Who occupies a house then? Only the owner? The owner or a guest. That's how housing works outside renting. If you can't charge rent on property, then you are incentivized to sell it, thereby flooding the home ownership market and lowering the cost of housing. This is a concept that has been discussed at length elsewhere. I encourage you not to use me as your only source of education.
    - supernova87a 6y ago
      So, no one could move to say, a different city, until they found a house they could buy? I really think you need to think about unintended consequences. Not even unintended -- like, kindergarten 0th order effects.
      - thomastjeffery 6y ago
        No one can move to a different city until they can find a house or apartment they can rent. The only significant difference between buying property and renting it is that renters get to exploit tenants. > I really think you need to think about unintended consequences. Not even unintended -- like, kindergarten 0th order effects. Like I said, this is a serious idea that has existed for decades, not some trivial thing I pulled out of my ass. Just because it doesn't instantly appeal to you does not mean it is worthless. I'm not going to sit here and step you through every consideration made on this topic. If you are honestly interested, you can go read about it yourself. Frankly, your decision to talk down to me like I'm some kind of thoughtless child merely stifles the conversation for both parties. Kindly get off your high horse.

Well, you see, landlords are a classic edge case of property rights and unregulated Capitalism. Capitalism is praised as a motivator for people to contribute to society with the promise of fiscal returns. Landlords make zero contribution, while attaining huge returns. Abolishing landlords would accomplish one of Marx's most significant goals without completely throwing out property rights and capitalism. > How would that one work? Well, like any implementation, that's up for discussion. The general idea is that we would remove the ability for landlords to charge rent. Landlords would have an explicit infringement on their property rights. They would no longer have the right to demand recurring payment from occupants of their properties. They would have restrictions of their ability to evict tenants. Of course, the implementation is where this idea gets contentious. Are landlords allowed to evict tenants who destroy property? Do landlords even own property anymore, or is it explicitly given to tenants? What about multi-dwelling properties? Who owns the furnace in an apartment complex? Do we create a third-party authority? Can any of this be accomplished without full-fledged Communism? Most of the complications lie in the change from status quo. It's pretty complicated to decide who owns property that is already owned by landlords, but it's pretty straightforward to make it illegal to enter new rental contracts. I agree that simply throwing out the words "abolish landlords" trivializes a lot, but it's still an idea worth exploring. What we have now isn't inherently better. It's a pretty obvious failing. People are homeless while homes lie vacant. People are inheriting huge swaths of property, making wealth and power, then turning that power toward policy that benefits them. These are real problems, and they deserve attention.

supernova87a 6y ago
Sorry if I haven't heard enough of this crazy talk yet to understand it. You're saying that residential property gets a special restriction on how people who own something are able to use it or enter into agreements on how they can charge others for the use of it? Who occupies a house then? Only the owner?
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  > Sorry if I haven't heard enough of this crazy talk yet to understand it. I get that this proposal is a significant change from the status quo. That's the point. The status quo has some glaring issues. I understand it's difficult to take proposals for big changes seriously, but does that mean we should not take the problems of our current system seriously? > You're saying that residential property gets a special restriction on how people who own something are able to use it or enter into agreements on how they can charge others for the use of it? Yes. Specifically, no one can enter an agreement where housing can be rented. The core idea is that housing can be owned and sold, just that it can't be rented. There can be some discussion as to whether short term contracts like hotels could be allowed, but they would have to be regulated to prevent abuse. The only question left is what to do about extant rental contracts. > Who occupies a house then? Only the owner? The owner or a guest. That's how housing works outside renting. If you can't charge rent on property, then you are incentivized to sell it, thereby flooding the home ownership market and lowering the cost of housing. This is a concept that has been discussed at length elsewhere. I encourage you not to use me as your only source of education.
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    So, no one could move to say, a different city, until they found a house they could buy? I really think you need to think about unintended consequences. Not even unintended -- like, kindergarten 0th order effects.
    - thomastjeffery 6y ago
      No one can move to a different city until they can find a house or apartment they can rent. The only significant difference between buying property and renting it is that renters get to exploit tenants. > I really think you need to think about unintended consequences. Not even unintended -- like, kindergarten 0th order effects. Like I said, this is a serious idea that has existed for decades, not some trivial thing I pulled out of my ass. Just because it doesn't instantly appeal to you does not mean it is worthless. I'm not going to sit here and step you through every consideration made on this topic. If you are honestly interested, you can go read about it yourself. Frankly, your decision to talk down to me like I'm some kind of thoughtless child merely stifles the conversation for both parties. Kindly get off your high horse.