Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja00965 wrote

Reply to comment by Ijustlookedthatup in Help us take down slumlords! by MrArkAngel11

even "good" landlords aren't worth highlighting cos they still function to commodify essential human needs

−5

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja01l01 wrote

Houses don’t just come into being. It’s thousands of hours of craftsmanship to build safely and properly. This take time and money, being that there’s a housing shortage I would say that having the people who can’t afford to own homes have an option is better than not or public housing(that’s barely available) which people have the right to chose not to live in.

Unless you’re out there volunteering your time and money digging foundations, setting plates, and constructing free housing for strangers I don’t think you have a place to say that someone who provides a service to the community and also their family is inherently not good. Asking others to give and judging them for not giving up all they’ve possibly worked for is throwing stones from glass house type thinking.

17

420foreverandalways t1_ja0ouo0 wrote

Landlords don't provide housing. They horde it, and hold it hostage. They are parasites.

−4

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja0ral4 wrote

Who builds homes?

0

420foreverandalways t1_ja3bjy5 wrote

Construction workers, obviously. Landlords only know how to paint things with that thick white paint. Did you think landlords build the houses they own? LMFAO.

1

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja3cpd6 wrote

Being as I build homes for a living now, I’m familiar with the process. And funny enough YES! They in fact do!!

Here’s how it works!

Person A has money to build a single family or multi-family structure. The construction firm isn’t going to finance it themselves, they wait usually for someone to approach with a project after securing financing. Then the firm builds it! Isn’t it exciting to learn!! After the build is complete the landlord/owner either rents or lives in the property themselves, although likely with multi-unit structures it goes straight to rental. Hence the landlords are in fact the ones that build homes!! Wasn’t that fun?! I sure had fun :)

2

420foreverandalways t1_ja3dqx9 wrote

If you pay me to have sex with your wife, are you having sex with your wife?

1

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja3dw2k wrote

Well without you paying me, you wouldn’t have sex with my wife. So ultimately I am the one who makes it happen. She’s very happen with you and I’s arrangement btw.

1

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja044b8 wrote

First of all, landlords have nothing to do with the construction of homes. They come in after the building is up. Second, the housing shortage in the US exists for the most part due to the prices of available housing (particularly in relation to median income), zoning issues, and housing allowed to sit idle due to a lack of profitability. Landlords don't provide housing, they hoard it and ransom it out.

−5

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja05bmz wrote

Who do you believe finances the construction of multi-family homes or complexes, the construction firms? They are individuals who then rent out those units after final construction.

I would agree with everything you said about the housing shortage. Yet you state that zoning as one of them which is a limit put on primarily the financiers and future landlords of properties they aren’t allowed to build.

When solving an engineering problem you cannot just wish the constraints of the environment were different. You accept the constraints and work as best as you can around them, meaning if you want to help the most people don’t fight the system but make the system work for you and your goals for your community. As the idea of housing as a commodity being inherently wrong is a communistic ideal and not inherently wrong in any way. Except for that it is not within the parameters of the environment that is the modern US. Instead of changing the overall system, work to do your best within the system. That’s using your energy most efficiently and effectively.

2

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja05r6n wrote

I don't care about finance, it's a spook. It only exists to perpetuate these systemic problems. I'm not saying we should wish away the constraints of the environment, but that we must change the environment itself. the system doesn't work and only serves to maintain these issues.

−2

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja0683n wrote

See that’s where we disagree, I feel the best and most effective way to control this problem and lead to minimizing human suffering is to utilize capitalism however faulted it may be. The problem I see is a lack of accountability at the local and state level. I believe changing the environment at this point is wishful thinking, that the best foot forward is to utilize a balance of social netting and community advocacy that’s near compulsory by its nature.

6

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja06n6l wrote

Capitalism and the state are the source of the problem and not a means to a solution. I wish it were that easy but it really isn't. this is the same thought process that Lenin used and we all know how that ended

7

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja079zi wrote

Well I do know that capitalism has singly increased the average age of expiration, quality of life, healthcare, than any other form of communal structure we’ve seen yet. So instead of burning down the house to fix a few rotted beams maybe support them then replace as needed.

I guess I’m too much of a realist to even consider any national restructuring of government with a population of ~330m people without massive bloodshed or natural disaster.

5

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja07td3 wrote

those accomplishments were made by society and the work of people as a whole and not by capitalism. by that same line of logic, marxist-leninism in the USSR was equally successful. This also has nothing to do with realism but go off.

4

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja09aus wrote

They were made by individuals and teams that would otherwise not have had the environment to do what they did. Otherwise it would have happened previously. Comparing the USSR and and their healthcare with the general quality of life of the west is example enough. Barring phage therapy the Soviet’s just didn’t have the drive to push the R&D that capitalism provided for healthcare alone.

If you truly believe the US could switch government types as you say then explain a possibly socioeconomic avenue for that to happen without the two factors I described previously.

5

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja0a3a1 wrote

that's not at all true. I'm not gonna go into a rant about the USSR and why they were very marginally different from the US but suffice it to say capitalism actually stifles research in the name of profitability. It's a matter of risk v reward where research that has limited or no short term potential for profit and commercialization is neglected almost completely. It's a huge problem in academia. I'm also not advocating a change in government types. I'm an anarchist. I advocate for self-direction, free association, and an end to the state.

1

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja0c4cf wrote

Well after 15 years on an ambulance I learned that limiting government resources where they’re needed has fatal consequences. That there a position for a limited government at the local level that includes healthcare and housing as a supported necessity. I doubt anarchy will help solve more human tragedy than create it.

Academia may have a problems, but thousands of people locally have serious problems. it’s not theory, it’s on every corner.

3

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja0hh1a wrote

The limit on medical resources is also a factor but I mentioned academia specifically because it was an example in a book I just finished. Privatization is an enemy of medicine and only makes EMT work harder due to budget cutting and costs of care.

3

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja0r9av wrote

I was municipal 911 paramedic and still saw it, so I’m not sure where private came in. In some cases private companies provide the only 911 service due to lack of government resources so that’s what would happen in an anarchical system.

If someone can’t explain to me in simple terms a 9 y/o can understand how this system and it’s problems would be solved effectively, then it has no possibility of becoming reality without force or major natural disaster. People wouldn’t adopt it or understand it, so it has no probability of becoming a reality. So to solve these problem working within the system is necessary.

1

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja0sl82 wrote

It can't be explained in 9 year old terms because the world is far more complex than that. And no, privatization wouldn't happen with anarchy cos there's no private property or corporations to privatize anything

1

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja0tmnu wrote

If you cannot explain relatively simply how you would even approach a problem then you don’t understand it enough to truly have a discussion on it. Even more so have a passionate conversation about it. You have to have some idea on the steps required or else it’s all academic, meaning theoretical and not in reality.

2

degggendorf t1_ja061hk wrote

>Second, the housing shortage in the US exists for the most part due to the prices of available housing

What's the logic there, prices going up makes demand go up too? Usually it's the other way around.

1

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja0674a wrote

prices going up creates a rise in evictions and homelessness so yeah.

2

degggendorf t1_ja0a1xx wrote

>evictions

Then there's no net change to housing shortage. One party kicked out makes the unit available for an equivalent party to move in.

>homelessness

That's a reduction in demand if someone who would be living in a unit isn't.

0

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja1fp5r wrote

It's not about supply vs demand. People need housing and are being pushed out by rising costs of living. that's the housing crisis.

1

degggendorf t1_ja1m3oe wrote

You said "housing shortage" in the comment I replied to.

0

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja1nbkp wrote

semantics

1

degggendorf t1_ja1o5fu wrote

Okay, words have no meaning to you, noted.

1

[deleted] t1_ja1uvlj wrote

[removed]

0

degggendorf t1_ja2ren3 wrote

It kinda seems like your inability to explain your logic, then falling back onto saying that words have no meaning is you coping. I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to say, I'm not sure what coping I would be doing.

1

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja2vtpy wrote

The breakdown is just the fact that I misused a single word so in good faith I'll just take that L. I was also very very tired at the time.

2

[deleted] t1_ja03dv4 wrote

[deleted]

3

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja03pgt wrote

yes

−1

[deleted] t1_ja04dgt wrote

[deleted]

1

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja04m7s wrote

just because it's the world we live in doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't change it.

1

[deleted] t1_ja04tq8 wrote

[deleted]

2

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja04zgx wrote

yes we should get rid of capitalism. if we don't rid ourselves of capitalism and the state, the world will turn into a desert

3

[deleted] t1_ja061o7 wrote

[deleted]

1

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja069e1 wrote

you a member of DSA?

1