Spicy's plan for utopia

[thetruepandagod]

Open borders is actually an attainable and desirable goal for economic reasons.

only asking how it would work in a situation where there would be 0 private housing and only government housing funded by taxes and decided by communities. seems the biggest sector would be construction in this new society and not much else, at first anyway

[Tymon]

And social services, because phase 1 of that plan would be forced relocation of almost everyone in suburbia. After you seize their land and bulldoze their homes. Presumably after the lite civil war and all of the dissidents are jailed or executed.

[Spicyryan]

Spicy continues to dodge the question of how many destroyed lives is acceptable to reach his impossible ideals.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Yes, no lives are destroyed by capitalism, my bad.

I'm not dodging the question. As many will die as die, but people die and will die either way.

[thetruepandagod]

"it's okay when people die to my economic system but not yours"

[thetruepandagod]

u lack all the sincerity and competence of gred

[Tymon]

[Ayn]

This concept generally hangs people up for whatever reason. Landlords are destructive parasites. Middlemen who provide no service and exploit the communities they seek to monopolize. It is the communal theft of a necessary resource. Housing is not a commodity to be bought and sold for profit, but a right and essential benefit to a society.

Can you elaborate on this for me, please? I might be getting hung up on the hyperbolic and absolutist language here, but I would like an expansion on this.

I ask about this because I think about times where it's been more beneficial to own (i.e. you're firmly rooted in the place, or working in a field where it really benefits you to be part of that community) and times where flexibility and the ability to move for better paying opportunities, or to be more close to friends and family made renting a boon.

While I am not sure if that was your intent, this seems premised on the belief that everyone who rents wants to own, and they cannot do so because of landlords being a large factor here.

Look I usually just post in this threads to post a meme, or give someone fuel to use my avatar as a response, so I'm trying to approach this in good faith.

[Spicyryan]

u lack all the sincerity and competence of gred

Yes and no. Not that anyone cares about the differences nor does it matter.

[NynJa]

"it's okay when people die to my economic system but not yours"

[Spicyryan]

Can you elaborate on this for me, please? I might be getting hung up on the hyperbolic and absolutist language here, but I would like an expansion on this.

I ask about this because I think about times where it's been more beneficial to own (i.e. you're firmly rooted in the place, or working in a field where it really benefits you to be part of that community) and times where flexibility and the ability to move for better paying opportunities, or to be more close to friends and family made renting a boon.

While I am not sure if that was your intent, this seems premised on the belief that everyone who rents wants to own, and they cannot do so because of landlords being a large factor here.

Look I usually just post in this threads to post a meme, or give someone fuel to use my avatar as a response, so I'm trying to approach this in good faith.

Even I can read the tone and tell it was a genuine question, don't worry. Though I appreciate being upfront.

So, a landlord does no work in exchange for value they extract out of a community. Even if work need be done they are hiring someone to do it. Who would need to be hired anyway without the landlord.
Landlords purchase land with the sole desire of profit. This absentee ownership charges more than the mortgage on the property, if not purchased outright with profit in the first place. This increases the cost on the working class/average person regardless if you rent or own as it also snatches up properties and inflates the cost, shutting others out. Homelessness increases due to this amoral practice. It is a net negative on any community and the quality of life to the vast majority in it. You can, if you are so inclined, look up the effect affordable housing has on a community and economy.

The first hangup people experience over these parasites is generally either "X relative rents a property and they aren't bad" or "how would we even get property then because XYZ?!" First, this problem is far larger than someone having a small summertime down the shore. That's partly why there is absolutism (abolition) on the subject because of how the issue naturally grows pervasive. Even then what I said prior still applies, and the swamp gets drained.
Landlords aren't needed to provide property of which they do not even construct in the first place, once again simply snatching up. Federal, states, and local government can manage the planning of housing and renting it. Money then goes back into the community and beyond instead of out of it. Housing is build by the collective and should benefit the collective instead of private interests.
A landlord isn't needed for any part of the process, and often does the bare minimum anyway. Tenant unions/collaboratives would so a dar better job seeing as the people actually live in the place they be addressing. It would also end those fucking HoAs in the process.

Even then I am sure someone while chime in that X program sucks and they rather deal with a landlord or something of the sort. Which is silly, and housing initiatives don't have to suck, but are often undermined and overall caught in a conflict of interest between people and capital.

[Ayn]

Even I can read the tone and tell it was a genuine question, don't worry. Though I appreciate being upfront.

So, a landlord does no work in exchange for value they extract out of a community. Even if work need be done they are hiring someone to do it. Who would need to be hired anyway without the landlord.
Landlords purchase land with the sole desire of profit. This absentee ownership charges more than the mortgage on the property, if not purchased outright with profit in the first place. This increases the cost on the working class/average person regardless if you rent or own as it also snatches up properties and inflates the cost, shutting others out. Homelessness increases due to this amoral practice. It is a net negative on any community and the quality of life to the vast majority in it. You can, if you are so inclined, look up the effect affordable housing has on a community and economy.

The first hangup people experience over these parasites is generally either "X relative rents a property and they aren't bad" or "how would we even get property then because XYZ?!" First, this problem is far larger than someone having a small summertime down the shore. That's partly why there is absolutism (abolition) on the subject because of how the issue naturally grows pervasive. Even then what I said prior still applies, and the swamp gets drained.
Landlords aren't needed to provide property of which they do not even construct in the first place, once again simply snatching up. Federal, states, and local government can manage the planning of housing and renting it. Money then goes back into the community and beyond instead of out of it. Housing is build by the collective and should benefit the collective instead of private interests.
A landlord isn't needed for any part of the process, and often does the bare minimum anyway. Tenant unions/collaboratives would so a dar better job seeing as the people actually live in the place they be addressing. It would also end those fucking HoAs in the process.

Thanks. So if I'm understanding your argument correctly, it's that ultimately a community collective (e.g. tenant unions / co-ops) would do a better job of managing it in conjunction with state and local government managing the upkeep, planning, and renting of housing?

[Spicyryan]

Thanks. So if I'm understanding your argument correctly, it's that ultimately a community collective (e.g. tenant unions / co-ops) would do a better job of managing it in conjunction with state and local government managing the upkeep, planning, and renting of housing?

Yes.

Often the landlord doesn't even live in the community anyway. Their absentee ownership just makes everything more expensive for everyone else.
So even if you don't rent, you still have to pay more for the house, more on the mortgage, and more in property tax the more landlords there are in your area. Everyone loses except the guy who does not even live there, but profits still. Takes the money from the area, and invests it back into their own personal wealth creation.

[Jaybar]

We have government run housing already and the beaurocracy is abhorrent. Sorry but this magical panacea that removing landlords and replacing with federal operators is a farce. It would be nice, but it's not great. Good landlords know their building and their tenants. They build rapport with local trades to keep their building well maintained at reasonable costs.

A government-run system does not have this fundamental intimacy with a property. The housing is treated as ledgers, the people as "expenses", and the managers are forced to use the lowest-bid trades who end up nickel and diming them with change orders.

So again, remove bad faith actors from the system. No need to revolutionize it for something completely worse for the public. Let the government run/fund as-needed housing where developers won't do it.

[Zealot]

I would be down for community-owned and run housing.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Jaybar]

A co-op living/management system is just a condo association board.

[Jaybar]

Or an HOA.

[NynJa]

So, a landlord does no work in exchange for value they extract out of a community.

lmao
You're talking about slumlords, not landlords.

[NynJa]

A co-op living/management system is just a condo association board.

Which are fucking overpriced garbage

Or an HOA.

Which is actually even worse than a condo board.

[Spicyryan]

lmao
You're talking about slumlords, not landlords.

No.

[Jaybar]

We already have property management companies, too. That's the closest you'll get to a community co-op without it turning into a NIMBY-fest.