3 ms·
The steelman interpretation would be that government is the only party allowed to own rental properties. Nobody would be allowed to rent out a space they owned
by Aurornis 5mo ago
The steelman interpretation would be that government is the only party allowed to own rental properties.
Nobody would be allowed to rent out a space they owned because it would turn them into a landlord. All of the rooms people rent out to others would go away. You wouldn’t be able to rent a private house from someone, you’d have no choice but to live in government owned housing developments.
This would be incredibly unpopular if implemented because it wouldn’t resemble the utopian fantasy it’s supposed to represent. It’s a vacuous idealism in the same category as “billionaires shouldn’t exist” that serves as a placeholder for an unspecified utopian government-run economy. The details are never specified, you’re just supposed to imagine it works and nothing is lost as a tradeoff.
- chadgpt3 5mo agoThat isn't a steel man
- keiferski 5mo agoI think Vienna somewhat functions like this, and it seems to be fine. Not that individuals can’t literally own property and rent it out, but that most housing options are government owned.
- em-bee 5mo agoactually a lot is privately owned, but by law 2/3rd of every rental property must be offered as subsidized by the city. so in practice you own the building, but the city decides who gets to rent 2/3rds of it since the subsidized units are only given to people who have a low enough income.
- keiferski 5mo agoInteresting, thanks for the clarification.