2 ms·

Why not get rid of personal property. Lets start with you. > Oh, are we meant to be afraid of these solutions? Not afraid, but how about we spend a non-zero a

Why not get rid of personal property. Lets start with you. > Oh, are we meant to be afraid of these solutions? Not afraid, but how about we spend a non-zero amount of brain power seeing if that is good or not rather than painting opponents as cowardly? Is asking to think too much to ask?

thomastjeffery 6y ago
> Why not get rid of personal property. Well, that's pretty intense. But as a thought experiment, I suppose we can go all the way down this slippery slope. > Lets start with you. Well no, that's not how it works. We start with literally everyone at the same time. That's what Communism means. The fact that you need to change it to make it look unappealing is telling. Granted, I'm not advocating communism here. I'm just pointing out that landlords are an obvious edge case. Landlords provide no benefit, while reaping a huge reward, especially when you factor in generational wealth. > Not afraid, but how about we spend a non-zero amount of brain power seeing if that is good or not rather than painting opponents as cowardly? That's what I'm trying to do here. The comment I was replying to insinuated that we should spend a zero amount of brain power considering Socialist policy. > Is asking to think too much to ask?
- fr11 6y ago
  Landlords provide benefits: renting a property means getting somewhere to live without being responsible for major systems if they break. Just because some landlords don't do a great job of maintenance doesn't change the fact that they are legally required to perform a minimum. In addition, property purchase is legally complex, time-consuming, and risky. If you cannot find someone to purchase the home that you purchased, you can't really get rid of it. Renting thus provides optionality - the choice to walk away. The landlord takes on the risk of not being able to find a renter and having to cover the mortgage and property tax costs for a space they're not using. If you think that'll never happen, take a look at Detroit. This is not to say that landlords are perfect, or that having them is better than the costs of them. But when you are going around making, in my opinion overly simplistic arguments, you weaken the strength of the underlying case. It makes it hard to take other things you say seriously.

thomastjeffery 6y ago

> Why not get rid of personal property. Well, that's pretty intense. But as a thought experiment, I suppose we can go all the way down this slippery slope. > Lets start with you. Well no, that's not how it works. We start with literally everyone at the same time. That's what Communism means. The fact that you need to change it to make it look unappealing is telling. Granted, I'm not advocating communism here. I'm just pointing out that landlords are an obvious edge case. Landlords provide no benefit, while reaping a huge reward, especially when you factor in generational wealth. > Not afraid, but how about we spend a non-zero amount of brain power seeing if that is good or not rather than painting opponents as cowardly? That's what I'm trying to do here. The comment I was replying to insinuated that we should spend a zero amount of brain power considering Socialist policy. > Is asking to think too much to ask?

fr11 6y ago
Landlords provide benefits: renting a property means getting somewhere to live without being responsible for major systems if they break. Just because some landlords don't do a great job of maintenance doesn't change the fact that they are legally required to perform a minimum. In addition, property purchase is legally complex, time-consuming, and risky. If you cannot find someone to purchase the home that you purchased, you can't really get rid of it. Renting thus provides optionality - the choice to walk away. The landlord takes on the risk of not being able to find a renter and having to cover the mortgage and property tax costs for a space they're not using. If you think that'll never happen, take a look at Detroit. This is not to say that landlords are perfect, or that having them is better than the costs of them. But when you are going around making, in my opinion overly simplistic arguments, you weaken the strength of the underlying case. It makes it hard to take other things you say seriously.