5 ms·

Homelessness is a problem, even having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live is a problem. Squatting is just a strategy to fight an inherently o

Homelessness is a problem, even having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live is a problem. Squatting is just a strategy to fight an inherently oppressive private property norm.

themaninthedark 2y ago
I would like to know what the limits of your application of this idea is because if I were to extend your argument that "even having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live is a problem.", this is what I get to: I am currently buying a house, every month I pay money to the bank, this is very similar to having to pay rent. From my understanding of your logic, this would be a problem. Further from that, I am building a house. I have to make payments to the builder(s) in order to have a place to live. Is this a problem?
- TotalCrackpot 2y ago
  I don't think I have a problem per se with the notion of borrowing money, if that's what you are asking about. I personally don't have an issue with you finding people who help you with building the house that agree to do that for some payment.
- gen220 2y ago
  Not endorsing the view, just sharing lines of reasoning I've seen. Paying money to the bank implies you financed your purchase of a home. This is not necessarily a morally-neutral activity, it's in fact nuanced but we've done a good job of handwaving away the nuance in the last 4-5 generations of Americans. A small vignette to explain: financing allows people to leverage their credit history and income to make larger purchases than they could otherwise afford. This increases the sticker price of purchasing a home, which prices out people with low credit or income. Anything that increases the price of housing effectively increases the price of rent, which limits peoples' abilities to save to actually purchase a home – it's a nasty cycle. One could argue that by participating in that system of financing, you're perpetuating it, but most people immediately dismiss this idea, ymmv. Building a house, and paying people to build the house, is not a problem. You're exchanging value for labor and assets. You're de facto increasing the supply of housing.
  - themaninthedark 2y ago
    So, I personally like the idea of someone working with a builder to build your house. I also like the idea of only ever buying something rather than financing it. I also think that if that was only the option, housing prices would rise rather than fall. Cash up front, I assume in an escrow so that buyer can't cheat builder and builder can't run away with the money. This means that a someone who wants to build/buy a home is going to need around 150k saved up. Assuming that 50k yearly salary and rent is immoral, they have to live at home until saved up. 1/3 put aside is 16.66k per year, 9 years before they can get a house. In actuality, the cost is probably going to be more expensive as you would no longer have developments going up.
    - gen220 2y ago
      Not necessarily, you just might not build 100% of your eventual home immediately. It used to be (i.e. prior to the postwar expansion of credit to the American consumer) pretty common to build a "starter home" that was intended to be expanded. You start with the basics (basement, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom) and expand modularly from there as your prosperity and needs allow. In the midwest, they would start by building the foundation, basement, and a very modest first floor. As the family prospered, had children, and developed roots in the neighborhood, they'd expand the above-ground portion of the home in the summer months. You can find homes frozen at each stage of development from the pre-depression 1900s still around today, although they're of greater archaeological value today than housing stock value. A lot of present-day "colonial" housing stock in the Northeastern U.S. have evidence of this gradual accrual over the decades. This idea of "build a whole mansion at once" was historically reserved for the truly wealthy, and has only been "practical" for a greater segment of society for the last 50 years (again, with the expansion of consumer credit, not because we can actually afford these things). You could still choose to build things this older style. Our culture of "obtain everything all at once, immediately up to the limit of your purchasing power" is the main impediment. That, and building codes might frown on some earlier-phase iterations, though YMMV.
      - themaninthedark 2y ago
Wytwwww 2y ago
> even having to pay rent to another I'm curious how would you expect housing to stock to grow or even stay stable if nobody had to pay rent? Would all housing be used owned by the state and assigned to individuals based on certain criteria (with huge amounts of inefficiency and corruption that such a system creates)?
- TotalCrackpot 2y ago
  It could grow either by people making their own houses on their own, or by them finding others who would help with this process, or by paying someone for the labor required for the house to get build. I think that private property should not get nationalized.
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    Right, so basically you want the system we currently have?
    - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
      No, I want for example to abolish private property of land and natural resources.
      - blackhawkC17 2y ago
        Fortunately, most citizens are not economically illiterate enough to support this ideology. Private ownership of land and natural resources is the foundation of 21st-Century economic prosperity.
        TotalCrackpot 2y ago
        No it's not. Private property created a world where 8 persons control as much wealth as the poorest half of humanity. This is not common prosperity, this is exploitation.
ImJamal 2y ago
Are you willing to provide your address so we can stay at your place? It would be inherently oppressive if you don't. There are homeless shelters where people can have shelter without paying rent.
- TotalCrackpot 2y ago
  I am living under my address, I am occupying that place, so I am not fine with providing my address. But I am fine with people living in abandoned houses.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    How do you define abandoned? If I leave for 1 day is that abandoned? What about 1 week, 1 month or 1 year?
    - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
      I think it depends on local customs and local agreements, it can differ. I guess I could consider a house abandoned if no one lives there for a year or 2. While for a mine, I think I would consider it abandoned the moment previous miners left it, such that other can get into the mine and mine some resource.
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        I'm a little confused. You said you want to get rid of private property but also your residence is occupied so I can't stay there. Who gave you the right to say that? If there is no private property it seems like we should be able to vote who can stay in your residence.

Homelessness is a problem, even having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live is a problem. Squatting is just a strategy to fight an inherently oppressive private property norm.

themaninthedark 2y ago

I would like to know what the limits of your application of this idea is because if I were to extend your argument that "even having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live is a problem.", this is what I get to: I am currently buying a house, every month I pay money to the bank, this is very similar to having to pay rent. From my understanding of your logic, this would be a problem. Further from that, I am building a house. I have to make payments to the builder(s) in order to have a place to live. Is this a problem?

TotalCrackpot 2y ago
I don't think I have a problem per se with the notion of borrowing money, if that's what you are asking about. I personally don't have an issue with you finding people who help you with building the house that agree to do that for some payment.
gen220 2y ago
Not endorsing the view, just sharing lines of reasoning I've seen. Paying money to the bank implies you financed your purchase of a home. This is not necessarily a morally-neutral activity, it's in fact nuanced but we've done a good job of handwaving away the nuance in the last 4-5 generations of Americans. A small vignette to explain: financing allows people to leverage their credit history and income to make larger purchases than they could otherwise afford. This increases the sticker price of purchasing a home, which prices out people with low credit or income. Anything that increases the price of housing effectively increases the price of rent, which limits peoples' abilities to save to actually purchase a home – it's a nasty cycle. One could argue that by participating in that system of financing, you're perpetuating it, but most people immediately dismiss this idea, ymmv. Building a house, and paying people to build the house, is not a problem. You're exchanging value for labor and assets. You're de facto increasing the supply of housing.
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  So, I personally like the idea of someone working with a builder to build your house. I also like the idea of only ever buying something rather than financing it. I also think that if that was only the option, housing prices would rise rather than fall. Cash up front, I assume in an escrow so that buyer can't cheat builder and builder can't run away with the money. This means that a someone who wants to build/buy a home is going to need around 150k saved up. Assuming that 50k yearly salary and rent is immoral, they have to live at home until saved up. 1/3 put aside is 16.66k per year, 9 years before they can get a house. In actuality, the cost is probably going to be more expensive as you would no longer have developments going up.
  - gen220 2y ago
    Not necessarily, you just might not build 100% of your eventual home immediately. It used to be (i.e. prior to the postwar expansion of credit to the American consumer) pretty common to build a "starter home" that was intended to be expanded. You start with the basics (basement, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom) and expand modularly from there as your prosperity and needs allow. In the midwest, they would start by building the foundation, basement, and a very modest first floor. As the family prospered, had children, and developed roots in the neighborhood, they'd expand the above-ground portion of the home in the summer months. You can find homes frozen at each stage of development from the pre-depression 1900s still around today, although they're of greater archaeological value today than housing stock value. A lot of present-day "colonial" housing stock in the Northeastern U.S. have evidence of this gradual accrual over the decades. This idea of "build a whole mansion at once" was historically reserved for the truly wealthy, and has only been "practical" for a greater segment of society for the last 50 years (again, with the expansion of consumer credit, not because we can actually afford these things). You could still choose to build things this older style. Our culture of "obtain everything all at once, immediately up to the limit of your purchasing power" is the main impediment. That, and building codes might frown on some earlier-phase iterations, though YMMV.
    - themaninthedark 2y ago

Wytwwww 2y ago

> even having to pay rent to another I'm curious how would you expect housing to stock to grow or even stay stable if nobody had to pay rent? Would all housing be used owned by the state and assigned to individuals based on certain criteria (with huge amounts of inefficiency and corruption that such a system creates)?

TotalCrackpot 2y ago
It could grow either by people making their own houses on their own, or by them finding others who would help with this process, or by paying someone for the labor required for the house to get build. I think that private property should not get nationalized.
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  Right, so basically you want the system we currently have?
  - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
    No, I want for example to abolish private property of land and natural resources.
    - blackhawkC17 2y ago
      Fortunately, most citizens are not economically illiterate enough to support this ideology. Private ownership of land and natural resources is the foundation of 21st-Century economic prosperity.
      - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
        No it's not. Private property created a world where 8 persons control as much wealth as the poorest half of humanity. This is not common prosperity, this is exploitation.

ImJamal 2y ago

Are you willing to provide your address so we can stay at your place? It would be inherently oppressive if you don't. There are homeless shelters where people can have shelter without paying rent.

TotalCrackpot 2y ago
I am living under my address, I am occupying that place, so I am not fine with providing my address. But I am fine with people living in abandoned houses.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  How do you define abandoned? If I leave for 1 day is that abandoned? What about 1 week, 1 month or 1 year?
  - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
    I think it depends on local customs and local agreements, it can differ. I guess I could consider a house abandoned if no one lives there for a year or 2. While for a mine, I think I would consider it abandoned the moment previous miners left it, such that other can get into the mine and mine some resource.
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      I'm a little confused. You said you want to get rid of private property but also your residence is occupied so I can't stay there. Who gave you the right to say that? If there is no private property it seems like we should be able to vote who can stay in your residence.