Spicy's plan for utopia

[Spicyryan]

Abolition of landlords is a hand in hand concept with abolition of private property. Which is to say, abolition of owning your home in any form.

Probably need to figure out the right way to do it though, so that it doesn't turn into this:

Yes and no. One's home, assuming it is owned by them and not the bank under capitalism by contrast, is personal property. Because it is personal property and it would need to be explicit that it can't be for landlording.

[Zealot]

I see the difference. I'm actually on board with the no landlords/private property idea but like many things the concept is easier to say you grasp and would support than it is to conceive of ways to implement.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

It's not really "no landlords" it's "only the government can be a landlord"

Which, depending on your confidence in the competence of the state, could be fine

[Spicyryan]

It's not really "no landlords" it's "only the government can be a landlord"

Which, depending on your confidence in the competence of the state, could be fine

You have a democratic state of the people compared to an individual whose goal is to profit at the expense of others. Then use that profit to influence the law and insulate themselves.
Your odds are better with the state in this case.

[Tymon]

I like it as a concept but it's an incredibly slippery slope with implementation.

Abolition of private property essentially means the state owns the land. Ok, cool. So now there's a huge corruption risk in the state deciding your house is getting bulldozed to zone a new building. So you'll have to deal with the ramifications of that potentiality.

Or as noted above, abolition of the bank owning the property in favor of you owning it wholly as an asset. Ok cool again. But the ramifications of that are that the bank shouldn't be allowed as a middleman for purchases, right? So that means abolition of credit. For who? For everyone? So what's next there? Now you're having to either implement sweeping (massive) UBI so everyone can live fully on cash. But you also have to maintain the value of our currency in the world. Gold standard? Some other form of standard? Fiat money is designed with the credit system in mind. It'd have to go too.

It's an interesting theory and I'm not criticizing it, in fact thinking about ways you can implement it is a good debate. The flowchart is rather large though.

[Uzor]

Landlords must be extremely shitty in the U.S for you to want to abolish that. I've never had an issue with landlords in Sweden, and I don't know anyone who has.

If something is broken, they'll generally fix it within 48 hours at no cost. If it's urgent (leaking pipe for example) they'll send someone as soon as possible, typically within an hour or two. Also at no cost. Both are assuming you didn't break it intentionally yourself, though. They'll also pay for pest control if the apartment is infested, and they're generally very fast fixing that to prevent it from spreading to other apartments.

That's for rentals though. For owned apartments or houses, you'll need to pay for repairs and all of that yourself. You still don't need to pay for pest control yourself, that's paid for by the housing cooperative.

[Tymon]

You have a democratic state of the people compared to an individual whose goal is to profit at the expense of others. Then use that profit to influence the law and insulate themselves.
Your odds are better with the state in this case.

Depends on the state. A hypothetical benevolent one sure. I would say a significant majority of governments in the world would be the losing choice here vs. the capitalist machine. But this is a thread about hypothetical utopias, so I digress.

[Tymon]

Landlords must be extremely shitty in the U.S for you to want to abolish that. I've never had an issue with landlords in Sweden, and I don't know anyone who has.

If something is broken, they'll generally fix it within 48 hours at no cost. If it's urgent (leaking pipe for example) they'll send someone as soon as possible, typically within an hour or two. Also at no cost. Both are assuming you didn't break it intentionally yourself, though. They'll also pay for pest control if the apartment is infested, and they're generally very fast fixing that to prevent it from spreading to other apartments.

That's for rentals though. For owned apartments or houses, you'll need to pay for repairs and all of that yourself. You still don't need to pay for pest control yourself, though, that's paid for by the housing cooperative.

The problem with landlords in the US is that there's rarely any regulation that controls what they can and cannot charge. There is regulation for what they're required to do for tenants. Though they can and do often ignore it.

It's an equality thing. I could go move into one of the fancy new high rise apartments downtown and spend $3000 for a studio and have the best management ever. Concierge, private parking, every benefit you posted and more. But that's a massive cost. If I want to live somewhere for a fair amount my options dwindle significantly, and usually results in a place owned by a mega-landlord (someone or a company who owns dozens to thousands of properties) that's going to balk at absolutely everything, never keep up with maintenance, etc, etc.

I can't speak for the whole US, but at least here, your best chance by far at having a decent rental with honest people running it is to try to find a real landlord. As in a single person owning a single property. The likelihood that person will actually care is astronomically higher than going with some kind of REIT or property management group.

[Roranora]

can we force-feed Brits real food until they develop a palate

[Zealot]

Property law in the U.S. is usually ridiculously skewed in favor of the landlord, yes.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

Property law in the U.S. is usually ridiculously skewed in favor of the landlord, yes.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

Yeah, but it's not an accident. It is the inclination of capitalism.

Its easy to be uneasy about the state because corruption isn't unique to any system, and has more consequence the more powerful the state is. However, in one example corruption is centralized and as long as democracy has teeth and the system can be held accountable. Then that is preferable to pervasive and self-sustained corruption which also still involves the state. It's easier to get mad at or address something with a face than a faceless problem.

[Andalusian girls]

can we force-feed Brits real food until they develop a palate

they were conquered and ruled by a French dynasty for a century there is no hope for them

[Zealot]

Yeah, but it's not an accident. It is the inclination of capitalism.

Its easy to be uneasy about the state because corruption isn't unique to any system, and has more consequence the more powerful the state is. However, in one example corruption is centralized and as long as democracy has teeth and the system can be held accountable. Then that is preferable to pervasive and self-sustained corruption which also still involves the state. It's easier to get mad at or address something with a face than a faceless problem.

I never said it was.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Uzor]

they were conquered and ruled by a French dynasty for a century there is no hope for them

Not to mention colonizing nations known for their food and spices, and yet seemingly using none of it for their own food. The Brits are, if anything, stubborn.

[Spicyryan]

I never said it was.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

I wasn't in disagreement or anything, lol. Was just picking up on that, and adding on with thought towards from Tymon before. Your post just felt right as an anchor.

Not to mention colonizing nations known for their food and spices, and yet seemingly using none of it for their own food. The Brits are, if anything, stubborn.

I'm a foodie in some regards, and I don't think there is anything British that I care about cuisine-wise. It's not like they own meat and potatoes with gravy either.

[Jaybar]

I rent. I pay monthly to have a roof over my head. It is a type of service industry. Someone supplies housing, I get to access said housing.

If I wanted to have full control over my housing I would not be renting, but I don't care for that burden at the moment so landlords get to make some profit by supplying this service.

Am I using wrong think? What incentive do people have to supply housing? Only solution is state-run housing which would probably lead to some interesting Section 106 and eminent domain mismanagement.

[NynJa]

While there are plenty of scummy abusive landlords out there, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of "ABOLISH ALL LANDORDS" voices come from people who have no fucking clue how much it costs to own and maintain their own home.

[Jaybar]

Archie out risking his life fixing his roof with DIY experience. Nah I'm good.

[Tymon]

I've spent significantly more in 2 years of home ownership than in 4 years of renting. But I've greatly enjoyed the DIY and renovation, not to mention the satisfaction. Worth it for sure.

That said, probably selling soon. Can't start a family here. Dead end.

Edit: I've also been electrocuted twice since risking your life was mentioned. Also fun

[Spicyryan]

While there are plenty of scummy abusive landlords out there, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of "ABOLISH ALL LANDORDS" voices come from people who have no fucking clue how much it costs to own and maintain their own home.

Bit roundabout in reasoning. Problem feeds the problem as landlords make housing more expensive. It's expensive to maintain and distribute water too, but it's also a necessity.

Shit, NJs power infrastructure is bad despite the profits it takes it year after year and rate hikes. Essential services can't be motivated by profit over need. Then again neither should anything which produces value to a society.

Landlords don't provide a service and just siphon wealth out of communities. It's a pretty easy call in terms of improvement to the collective.