6 ms·

It really scares me that this even needs to be explained to people. The government is outright stealing from landlords. They literally made it illegal (while al

It really scares me that this even needs to be explained to people. The government is outright stealing from landlords. They literally made it illegal (while also not passing an actual law, as far as I know [which is how every COVID restriction worked as well]) to evict somebody. So many people have this juvenile notion of what a landlord is, too. They seem to think the only type of landlord is a mega-tycoon that owns hundreds of properties. Don't get me wrong, I am against all forms of theft so it's still wrong to steal from them, but it makes it a lot more apparent how wrong it is when you're stealing from the old Grandma that has 1 or 2 extra properties that she rents out.

emodendroket 5y ago
If a change in the law causes a stock I own to crater in value, is the government “outright stealing from” me?
- nybble41 5y ago
  That obviously depends on what the change was. If the business of the company in question was predicated on selling services to the government and the law changes such that they no longer require the company's services, then no, that is not stealing from you. If the change in the law is that the company is henceforth required to provide service without payment then yes, absolutely, that is stealing from you. The government doesn't owe you a particular market price, but when they interfere with your perfectly voluntary private business dealings (or just outright take your stuff for public use without just compensation, which is basically what happened here) that is a clear-cut example of theft.
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    They didn't interfere with voluntary business dealings. They took away a service (evictions) that you were expecting the government to provide to assist your business dealings.
    - setr 5y ago
      >They took away a service (evictions) that you were expecting the government to provide to assist your business dealings. That's not a service. The government requires you to do so by law, because they don't want landlords doing it themselves. They didn't take away some notary service you could get done by AAA -- they took away a fundamental means of doing business. It's like claiming that the government took away a service (police) that you were expecting to have around. The police literally exist, and are required to be used, because they've already removed the option of self-policing.
      - nybble41 5y ago
        > The government requires you to do so by law, because they don't want landlords doing it themselves. Exactly. The issue is not merely that the government is no longer carrying out evictions for landlords. Leaving landlords to hire their own security teams and evict squatters at their own expense would be fine. What the government is doing, though, is employing force to actively prevent landlords from evicting squatters, which makes the government an accessory to the crime.
    - gameman144 5y ago
      Wait, how was there not interference with voluntary business dealings? A renter and a landlord voluntary sign a contract. The renter says "I will give you $XXXX a month for 12 months", and the landlord says "I will provide a livable home for you for the period of 12 months." Both agree: voluntary business dealing. Now the government comes in and says "Hey renter, you no longer have to fulfill your half of that agreement, but the landlord still does". The government has directly interfered with the voluntary business dealing between the renter and the landlord. Consider the counterexample: the government comes in and says "Hey landlord, you no longer have to keep the home livable or do repairs, but the renter still needs to pay rent." This would be just as much an interference with voluntary business dealings as what really happened, and everyone seems to agree on this point.
- gruez 5y ago
  In some cases, yes. Hence why trade deals contain IDS provisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem...
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  The issue here isn't the value of the property going down.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    So imagine I lost my dividend, which is a more plausible analogy than many of the others being offered up.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
1) I wonder how many landlords would have evicted but found their hands tied by the government. I mean, who was going to move in? 2) You call this notion of a landlord as a mega-tycoon juvenile but then present the equally juvenile (in my opinion) idea that land lords are just old Grandma with 1 or 2 extra properties she rents out. 1 or 2 extra properties? Wow, grandma. Must be nice. And I think the data will show that the trend in landlords is in fact toward mega-tycoons. (Sort of like the trend in farming that used to be old Grandpa with 1 or 2 acres.)
spookthesunset 5y ago
I totally agree. I don’t understand what isn’t clear about this. The rules completely changed against the landlord. They got completely hosed by this.

emodendroket 5y ago

If a change in the law causes a stock I own to crater in value, is the government “outright stealing from” me?

nybble41 5y ago
That obviously depends on what the change was. If the business of the company in question was predicated on selling services to the government and the law changes such that they no longer require the company's services, then no, that is not stealing from you. If the change in the law is that the company is henceforth required to provide service without payment then yes, absolutely, that is stealing from you. The government doesn't owe you a particular market price, but when they interfere with your perfectly voluntary private business dealings (or just outright take your stuff for public use without just compensation, which is basically what happened here) that is a clear-cut example of theft.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  They didn't interfere with voluntary business dealings. They took away a service (evictions) that you were expecting the government to provide to assist your business dealings.
  - setr 5y ago
    >They took away a service (evictions) that you were expecting the government to provide to assist your business dealings. That's not a service. The government requires you to do so by law, because they don't want landlords doing it themselves. They didn't take away some notary service you could get done by AAA -- they took away a fundamental means of doing business. It's like claiming that the government took away a service (police) that you were expecting to have around. The police literally exist, and are required to be used, because they've already removed the option of self-policing.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > The government requires you to do so by law, because they don't want landlords doing it themselves. Exactly. The issue is not merely that the government is no longer carrying out evictions for landlords. Leaving landlords to hire their own security teams and evict squatters at their own expense would be fine. What the government is doing, though, is employing force to actively prevent landlords from evicting squatters, which makes the government an accessory to the crime.
  - gameman144 5y ago
    Wait, how was there not interference with voluntary business dealings? A renter and a landlord voluntary sign a contract. The renter says "I will give you $XXXX a month for 12 months", and the landlord says "I will provide a livable home for you for the period of 12 months." Both agree: voluntary business dealing. Now the government comes in and says "Hey renter, you no longer have to fulfill your half of that agreement, but the landlord still does". The government has directly interfered with the voluntary business dealing between the renter and the landlord. Consider the counterexample: the government comes in and says "Hey landlord, you no longer have to keep the home livable or do repairs, but the renter still needs to pay rent." This would be just as much an interference with voluntary business dealings as what really happened, and everyone seems to agree on this point.
gruez 5y ago
In some cases, yes. Hence why trade deals contain IDS provisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem...
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
The issue here isn't the value of the property going down.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  So imagine I lost my dividend, which is a more plausible analogy than many of the others being offered up.

JKCalhoun 5y ago

1) I wonder how many landlords would have evicted but found their hands tied by the government. I mean, who was going to move in? 2) You call this notion of a landlord as a mega-tycoon juvenile but then present the equally juvenile (in my opinion) idea that land lords are just old Grandma with 1 or 2 extra properties she rents out. 1 or 2 extra properties? Wow, grandma. Must be nice. And I think the data will show that the trend in landlords is in fact toward mega-tycoons. (Sort of like the trend in farming that used to be old Grandpa with 1 or 2 acres.)

spookthesunset 5y ago

I totally agree. I don’t understand what isn’t clear about this. The rules completely changed against the landlord. They got completely hosed by this.