Bernie X

6y

No ❤️

Synopsis

6y

Go

Synopsis

6y

1. You can try and defend the idea that you need a luxury. Doesn't mean it's true.

2. Yes I've never contended that we can have complete equality in all facets of life down to a T without more authoritarian measures. And people doing that isnt some inherent fact of life. It's the result of a system that can be fixed.

3. It's a small issue in the grand scheme of things. Can be figured out once ppl other than me for example are helping to plan it.

4. Scenario: You own a sizable house from the days before this change I'm proposing. Someone owns a smaller house but a totally suitable one. You decide to rent out to this person because you're going to live with a partner in another state. Person moves in. Why would they pay you, knowing that the law of the land dictates that you, having moved out, now no longer can claim ownership of that house?

5. If theres a shortage of suitable apartment rooms they'll live on campus or at home with parents or a friends home closer to the school.

6. You'll be free to do that provided that extra land can't be used for the common good

7. *abolishment of profit motive/wage labor

8. It makes sense. The government can't tax what doesn't exist

9. Like I said they might be. And no, I'm dismissive of idiotic comments that assume certain things are inherent to people and not side effects of our system and ones that invoke no critical thinking

10. Idc about wealthy landowners or landlords

Slim Jxmmi

6y

obviously a college student does not need to own a home, but they should have that end goal in mind when they got the career they want and move where they want to live, this whole conversation ive been saying it should be the end goal, you shouldnt be HAPPY renting a place and not wanting to eventually own is my point

Oblivion X

6y

That was my point that's it's not ALWAYS going to be the better option lol

Oblivion X

6y

1. Well this is a subjective thing. There's no real way to enforce that. And it would definitely cause conflicts

2. Would the inequality in the system not cause problem amongst the people lol ? And greed will always exist no matter what.

3. It's pretty big issue but alright.

4. Who said anything about me moving out? Why can't I own my land while residing at my partner's land ?

5. So not everyone can get their own apartment when they reach a certain age ?

6. You'll be free to do that provided that extra land can't be used for the common good

6. That's a problem then. This common good thing also implies that I dont really "own" my land if the community can take it away from me.

7. That's whole another issue lol. So just forget this point

8. And what doesnt exist ?

9. I seen you dismiss some valid question itt, I'm not going to look through the whole thread to find some lol but its there lol

10. That would cause an uproar then. And I wouldn't say all of them are even wealthy. And it sets a precedent, what's stopping the seizure of other lands like farms and businesses

Synopsis

6y

1. No it's not a subjective thing lol. People don't need a pool in their backyard. They are more than welcome to build their own or find someone willing to do it. If not, like I said, I would hope that great recreational centers could provide it for them in their communities

2. No? Minute inequalities aren't going to break down a whole system when people have all their material needs met. People keep saying greed is inherent, i see no evidence.

3. Please answer this question: How can you live on someone else's land and on your own land simultaneously? You can't. And so why can't you own your own land and rent it out while living at your partner's house? Because that would make you a landlord.

4. I'm talking solely about apartments near the school. Like I said, the goal would be to have a surplus of housing units, which we already do in this country. If not, more can be constructed.

5. There's no contradiction in saying that owning a certain amount of land past a certain amount of acreage is superfluous and would be better off used by the community, with you having a say in how its used seeing as how you are a part of that community.

6. How can the government tax a currency to fund its activities before that currency exists?

7. That would cause an uproar then. And I wouldn't say all of them are even wealthy. And it sets a precedent, what's stopping the seizure of other lands like farms and businesses

7. If you can buy apartment complexes you certainly have a good amount of wealth at your disposal. I don't know why youre shocked by this position. If you own an apartment complex, you are a landlord. If you own land and use it for profit with no labor, that is exploitative. Why will farms and businesses not be seized? Simple. They would not be exploitative. There'd be no reason or precedent for them being seized.

Oblivion X

6y

1. Again the pool is a loose example. And yes it is because if it's anything besides food, water, and shelter it's a want. In this context needs defintley holds subjectivity to it. Or else your whole idea that every person in the housing needs 4 a bedroom is false. So surely there must be a guideline on these needs right ?

2. Land control is not a minute inequality lol. Wars and revolutions have been fought over land even when basic needs have been met. I never said greed is inherently. I said it will always exist.

3. The point is, that house is my land. You already said what I choose to do with my land is up to me. So if I choose to live in my partner's house, that land where that house is located at is still mine land and my house. And yeah I think that's the whole point of this question is that landlords could potentially exist under the system.

4. I'm talking solely about apartments near the school. Like I said, the goal would be to have a surplus of housing units, which we already do in this country. If not, more can be constructed.

4. So theres going to be a lottery system for these apartments near the school then ?

5. There's no contradiction in saying that owning a certain amount of land past a certain amount of acreage is superfluous and would be better off used by the community, with you having a say in how its used seeing as how you are a part of that community.

5. But this leads to a precedent. From what you been saying it sounds like I dont own my land, the community does.

6. What do you mean before the currency exists?

7. Not all apartment complexes cost that much to own, especially in bad neighborhoods lol. So yes theres definitely landlords that do not have that much money at disposal. That whole idea that all landlords are exploitative is silly to me. You say this but cuba has happened with a similar system.

DVLPR

6y

Don’t discriminate against people’s questions. There are no stupid questions. You made the thread and you want to spread awareness. Do that instead.

Synopsis

6y

1. Then provide a better example. A pool is a clear luxury.

2. Name those wars.

3. No, I've made clear in this thread that ownership of the house/land is predicated on you residing in it. If you no longer reside in that house, because you are residing in your partner's house, with them, you cannot own the other house/land because you no longer live there. Unless you can come up with a way in which you can live in two places at once.

4. Who knows. I don't know exactly how people would go about choosing their school when we have a much more equal education system across the board. but right now,the school i just graduated from is like, one of the most populated ones in the country. there was no shortage of housing.

5. Yes, past a certain point where it becomes superfluous to you. But you still get a say in how its used, considering you are part of the community.

6. Can a government tax dollars if it has not first printed dollars for the people to have?

7. You keep mentioning cuba. What happened in cuba? And yes, exploitative in this sense = making money off the labor of others. you rent the house out, i work to pay the rent, you made money off of my labor, contributing none of your own.

Oblivion X

6y

1. So ur not going to address the other s*** I just said after that lol ?

2. Wars fought over land ? Literally all throughout history. Israel and Palestine, Hong Kong and China, China and taiwan the crusades, Ethiopia and Eritrea. You could go on and on. And I know you're bout to follow with those wars werent fought when basic needs met. The point still stands lands has been a motivator for conflict in human history.

3. That's a loose concept that has holes in it. Like someone said before does mean kicking a family out of their house and living in that land grant me ownership. And yeah you can go back and forth from location and rent the place when your not there.

4. Well for my school which is also one of the most populated schools and a very large university. Had a shortage of housing, where there was a lottery system and they had to constantly build a new housing.

5. You dont see an issue with the concept of a person not owning truly owning their land ?

6. Dollars have already been in circulation tho before they taxed dollars tho.

7. Castro did something very similar to what ur saying. He took land from landlords and landowners. This includes apartments and farms. There was and is great dissent amongst the people that he took their land. But I did contribute my labor do. My labor went into to me being able to buy the property for you to rent from.

Kanyigga

6y

Thread owners are evil and the concept needs to be abolished

Synopsis

6y

i dont own this thread

Synopsis

6y

1. Not until you provide better examples, no.

2. Wars fought over land ? Literally all throughout history. Israel and Palestine, Hong Kong and China, China and taiwan the crusades, Ethiopia and Eritrea. You could go on and on. And I know you're bout to follow with those wars werent fought when basic needs met. The point still stands lands has been a motivator for conflict in human history.

2. And uhm yeah, thats exactly how I'm going to reply because in your last post you literally said "wars and revolutions have been fought over land even when basic needs have been met." It is literally your point, and now you are saying the point still stands while completely disregarding the point you just made. what even man.

3. No, clearly, because you violated that families rights. You have no right to remove someone from their home lmao. I like how this whole scenario was set up as to how I would implement this in my ideal society has now devolved into you telling me how things would look in this society without landlords of my creation, based on an understanding of how things work in our actual society right now. I am telling you, clear as day, that in what I am proposing, that you cannot rent a house out, because once you no longer live in that residence, which would be a precondition for renting to someone by its very definition, then you no longer can claim ownership of that land. Those are the parameters that have been set, because this whole little thought experiement is based on my version of a how a society without landlords would look in terms of rules, laws etc.,

4. Sounds like a problem of capitalism.

5. You would own your land, up to a point. But what constitutes your land? If you have a lone house sitting on 40 acres of land, who are you to say that all 40 acres are yours? That land could be better served helping the community.

6. There was a currency. But, we've clearly seen in the last few months that the govt can just print money.

7. Yes, the land owning white cubans don't like castro, i wont shed a tear for them. And no, your labor allowed you to buy the property. Now, you collect money off of other peoples labor, hence the exploitation part.

Oblivion X

6y

1. It doesn't work like that whatsoever but okay. What if I requested for my housing to be completely baby proof for my newborn child so they dont hurt themselves. Would they do it ?

2. Because you're using an unrealistic measure. Everyone single person's basic needs are never going to be met. The point of that statement is that conflict can be started with land being the only and primary motive, and not other factors such as, this entity is depriving me and my people of their basic needs.

3. And I love the fact that you are automatically assuming everything will run exactly as you intend for it to run in the real world lol. No one is even telling you how it would work, I'm literally just proposing scenarios that could happen in your system. And this is not even true, airbnb are literally run off the idea that someone is not currently residing in housing and rents it off, while still living there.

4. So you dont know the answer to this. Alright next point.

5. Again dangerous precedent.

6. Yikes, this is not how it works.

7. Yes, the land owning white cubans don't like castro, i wont shed a tear for them. And no, your labor allowed you to buy the property. Now, you collect money off of other peoples labor, hence the exploitation part.

7. Crazy how not all of them were white or wealthy. Castro took his own family land away from them and they weren't wealthy. I collect money off their labor by allowing them a temporary place to live that is a cheaper alternative than owning a house.

Are you saying you cant profit off your own land if you have no labor involved or else its exploitative?

Synopsis

6y

This is not a controversial statement I would imagine but I'll also direct you to read this thread

Synopsis

6y

1. Uhm yeah why wouldn't they? We can babyproof houses now lmao its not like this would require some great amount of innovation

2. Idk how much more plainly I can put this, but it was your f***ing point lmfao.

3. I'm not assuming anything. I am telling you how you could hypothetically implement things to prevent landlording. What values, laws etc., would go into the society to prevent such exploitation from arising. So, tell me, how could your scenario happen in a system where law dictates that home/land ownership is predicated on you residing in a residence, and that renting out a property is against the law. Why tf are you even bringing up airbnb when that is irrelevant to the society I am proposing?

4. No, I just think its irrelevant. Perhaps people will be going to schools closer to home because education is more equal, and choose to stay with their parents out of convenience rather than go out on their own. And some students will still live in dorms as well, its not like those will go obsolete. regardless, we can always build more housing for students.

5. No, it's not. You can't just use a slippery slope argument without demonstrating how it is a slippery slope.

6. According to you.

7. You are preying on the basic needs of people. And yes, if you are profiting off the labor of others, you are exploiting them.

Synopsis

6y

1. Uhm yeah why wouldn't they? We can babyproof houses now lmao its not like this would require some great amount of innovation

2. Idk how much more plainly I can put this, but it was your f***ing point lmfao.

3. I'm not assuming anything. I am telling you how you could hypothetically implement things to prevent landlording. What values, laws etc., would go into the society to prevent such exploitation from arising. So, tell me, how could your scenario happen in a system where law dictates that home/land ownership is predicated on you residing in a residence, and that renting out a property is against the law. Why tf are you even bringing up airbnb when that is irrelevant to the society I am proposing?

4. No, I just think its irrelevant. Perhaps people will be going to schools closer to home because education is more equal, and choose to stay with their parents out of convenience rather than go out on their own. And some students will still live in dorms as well, its not like those will go obsolete. regardless, we can always build more housing for students.

5. No, it's not. You can't just use a slippery slope argument without demonstrating how it is a slippery slope.

6. According to you.

7. You are preying on the basic needs of people. And yes, if you are profiting off the labor of others, you are exploiting them.

DropDeadProtection

6y

Quantitative easing is not equivalent to "printing money" at all - It's an exchange of one type of value (bonds, among other securities) for another type of value (money). Your ignorance regarding a topic doesn't make the point a question of opinion, so I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with #6 lol.