Forum Political Identity Poll

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]
People have different needs. Most people that live in apartments don't have the money to just buy (or put a downpayment and pay off) houses. They may also only need the place temporarily. So they agree to just pay for temporary usage of someone elses property. I see no reason to outlaw this mutally beneficial agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the landlord have the right to own more property then he needs for his own use?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anyone else have a right to determine how much he needs and deny him any more than that?

[/ QUOTE ]
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs..."

Seriously, make a new thread! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]
People have different needs. Most people that live in apartments don't have the money to just buy (or put a downpayment and pay off) houses. They may also only need the place temporarily. So they agree to just pay for temporary usage of someone elses property. I see no reason to outlaw this mutally beneficial agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the landlord have the right to own more property then he needs for his own use?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anyone else have a right to determine how much he needs and deny him any more than that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because him having more than he needs creates a class system and puts others at his mercy, which i don't find very desirable.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree in part with your sentiment, I think the mutualist view of land ownership places an unnecessary and unethical restriction on voluntary transactions. Unnecessary, because the phenomenon where a small % of people own the vast majority of land is a product of Statism (of both capitalist and socialist varieties) and could not happen in a free society.
Unethical, because it is a limitation on what consenting individuals with what is theirs.

But, as I stated before, I do think that different communities might handle the land issue differently, and that there is no real need to come to a complete consensus on the issue.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]
People have different needs. Most people that live in apartments don't have the money to just buy (or put a downpayment and pay off) houses. They may also only need the place temporarily. So they agree to just pay for temporary usage of someone elses property. I see no reason to outlaw this mutally beneficial agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the landlord have the right to own more property then he needs for his own use?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anyone else have a right to determine how much he needs and deny him any more than that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because him having more than he needs creates a class system and puts others at his mercy, which i don't find very desirable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is building housing in this scenario?

[neverforgetlol]

the landlord certainly did not.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
the landlord certainly did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

But he provided capital to make it happen.

If you eliminate the possiblity of renting property to others, what incentive is there to build apartments? What does someone without the resources or desire to own property do? Just wait around for someone to abandon existing housing?

You've excluded rental markets - basically you are creating a scenario of extreme rent control, with a maximum of $0. What normally happens in rent control situations is that rich people get the few cheap apartments available because they can leverage their connections and money (i.e. they can afford the black market (bribery)) and everyone else has to move somewhere else. Nobody builds anything new. In other words, a classic pricecap-induced shortage.

[neverforgetlol]

Where did he get the capital?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Where did he get the capital?

[/ QUOTE ]

A magic pony. Or, he stuffed a bunch of bald eagles into a juicer and sold bald eagle juice for $500/gallon. What difference does it make?

The question is who is building apartments for people who need housing when you've eliminated any incentive for people to do so.

[neverforgetlol]

well, if to make that money he had rented previous property, would that make any sense?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
well, if to make that money he had rented previous property, would that make any sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't it?

Are you going to answer the question, or are you going to keep driving the discussion into the tar pit?