EeyoresM8 t1_jboiodu wrote
Reply to comment by ladotelli46 in New York landlord becomes legal guardian of 93-year-old Holocaust survivor: 'She had no one else' by Imguran
Literally all of society is about living off of other people's value, that's the whole point of society, so you don't have to provide every service for yourself
refreshertowel t1_jbomsrh wrote
Yes, society needs people contributing from all sides, but only capitalism lets non-contributors own the contributions of others.
Butt_Bucket t1_jbop2vy wrote
Yeah, capitalism can be pretty great like that. I'm glad I get to own things, and that I can leave them for my next of kin when I die. Sure is nice.
refreshertowel t1_jboqyjf wrote
Huh, I didn't realise noone ever owned anything until capitalism came around in the the early 19th century. The more you know 🌈
ZellZoy t1_jbot0sk wrote
People often confuse capitalism and mercantilism which is honestly fair, the lines are kinda blurry. It doesn't help that anything left of hunting the homeless down for food is branded as communism wiping out all of the systems in between
refreshertowel t1_jbovpv9 wrote
Indeed, it's bizarre to me how wholeheartedly capitalism has infected every mode of thought in the modern world.
Go back less than a hundred years and there's a vast swathe of people pointing out that wages are another form of slavery...
Butt_Bucket t1_jbos8yz wrote
People did own things before capitalism came around. Hell, I would even go as far as to say that the entire concept of owning things created by other people massively predates capitalism too. Shit, its almost like your argument that "only capitalism lets non-contributors own the contributions of others" is completely wrong.
refreshertowel t1_jbov5qe wrote
Yeah, this is true, I was being mildly facetious when I said only capitalism allows such a thing. Many, many systems of production extortion have existed throughout the ages. Have you heard of the concept of Kings and the kinda shit that went down while they were the hot new thing?!
Regardless, "owning" land is an absurd concept and should be done away with. At best it's a method used by people in power to prevent others from extricating themselves from the said power. At best.
Butt_Bucket t1_jbox630 wrote
If it's such an absurd concept to you, then you don't have to own land. It's not compulsory.
>At best it's a method used by people in power to prevent others from extricating themselves from the said power. At best.
What about the countless millions of people who only own the land they live on? Do you believe they're oppressing everybody else by not sharing it?
If you really feel that strongly about it, I'm sure you must already live in a commune open to any destitute people who need a place. And if you don't, then maybe its time to start freely sharing your living space with strangers. Even better if you own land. Be the change you want to see in the world.
redditQuoteBot t1_jboypya wrote
Hi Butt_Bucket,
It looks like your comment closely matches the famous quote:
"Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
I'm a bot and this action was automatic Project source.
refreshertowel t1_jbozpox wrote
My entire garden is either local flora to help our native bees and other insects live or produce and that produce is freely shared with any people around me. My neighbours are entirely free to enter my yard whenever they want and to take any crops that interest them. Any neighbourhood kids have free reign over my yard, and there's often little football matches playing out in my front yard (as long as they don't damage the garden, as that is a communal resource).
While I'm forced to participate in this gross facade we have built as a society in order not to live in squalor, I'm very happy to share "my" land with those around me.
Butt_Bucket t1_jbp1pzp wrote
"My entire garden"
"My yard"
While I'm glad to hear that you're a generous person, it seems as if you still have a pretty strong concept of what belongs to you. You still value being the person who gets to decide how your land is used and shared. You can own something and still be generous with it.
I don't believe for a second that you would be happy if you suddenly lost all protections of ownership associated with your land, and had to cede it completely to wider society without any individual authority over what becomes of it. I'm not creating a dramatic hypothetical here. This is the exact scenario you invoke when you say that owning land is an absurd concept that should be done away with.
refreshertowel t1_jbp3xh8 wrote
Everyone who rents submits to a similar situation you describe, lol. Want to put up a painting on a wall? Needs owners permission. Want to remove a plant or add a new one to the garden? Needs owners permission. The only "ownership" that is allowed under land owners is that which they grant.
If that is some horrible dystopian nightmare, welcome to the modern world my friend.
The difference between myself and those other land owners is that I don't believe any of us should be able to profit from people living on land. I'm happy as long as I have something to shelter myself from the rain and something soft to lie on. I've lived in conditions without either.
Butt_Bucket t1_jbp61nt wrote
>Everyone who rents submits to a similar situation you describe, lol. Want to put up a painting on a wall? Needs owners permission. Want to remove a plant or add a new one to the garden? Needs owners permission. The only "ownership" that is allowed under land owners is that which they grant.
>
>If that is some horrible dystopian nightmare, welcome to the modern world my friend
Renters don't own the land they live on, so they don't have ownership rights. I'm not sure why you think I'd have a problem with that. They do have occupancy rights and I think that's important too.
​
>The difference between myself and those other land owners is that I don't believe any of us should be able to profit from people living on land.
Cool, but what you said was "owning land is an absurd concept that should be done away with". Profiting from land ownership is a step further, and being against that is a much less radical position that I probably would be more inclined to believe that you actually hold.
Do you actually want to abolish land ownership entirely or just renting land/property for money?
refreshertowel t1_jbp9mya wrote
Land ownership entirely. Forgive my slip of the tongue when I said "my", and let me replace it with "the". The essential being of the land remains the same regardless of what word I use to refer to it. You are neglecting the fact that it is impossible to live in the modern world, bar living in forced squalor, without some semblance of land ownership when you try to play the fact that I participate in the system against my views.
This is a common misunderstanding of people pro-establishment when talking to people anti-establishment: "Well, how can you be against X when you participate in X!" It's because the system is set up so there is no sensible way of living without X. It doesn't mean that a world without X is impossible.
The earth is the earth. It doesn't belong to any specific person, government or nation. An insect "owns" as much of the earth as you or I do.
I believe that national borders enable extreme exploitation of the working class. I believe that land ownership, especially (but not exclusively) when paired with multiple property owners, enables an extraction of wealth towards the ruling class (whether it be through property taxes or rent) from the worker, with no benefit to the overall society beyond some figures in a banking account growing an extra digit or two.
There have been many, many times in the hundreds of thousands of years throughout human history that long periods of harmony have existed without a concept of land ownership and the idea that land being owned is somehow essential to society or life is very incorrect. It's just not compatible with capitalism and all that entails.
MrSurfington t1_jbor3mq wrote
Landlords do not provide value, they don't do anything at all except own your house and take your income. They don't "provide a service". I shouldn't be out of a home because the housing economy says rent should be high. Housing, like water and health care, is a human right cuz without it you will die.
redditikonto t1_jboyrut wrote
Providing a house, taking care of it, and carrying the risks involved is a service.
monkeygoneape t1_jboy2xq wrote
Not sure what landlords are like in the states, but up here in Canada they're also responsible for maintenance and all the expenses around that
KitsyBlue t1_jbqgbz2 wrote
I'd gladly put the 900$ a month I pay towards upkeep if I could say goodbye to a landlord.
That's why I'm trying to get out of renting. Oh, wait though. It's a shame that the housing market is getting fucked price wise because rental companies and investors are buying up all the fucking supply, driving costs to unsustainable levels so they can go another day producing nothing of value to society.
Can't imagine why people have a negative opinion of them. They're like SNES mini scalpers, except I can live without an SNES mini. They contribute as much to society as one, too.
bombbrigade t1_jbp3d0q wrote
They are in the US too. Tennant rights far exceed the landlords in nearly all states
monkeygoneape t1_jbp3kx3 wrote
So the previous post was just a guy being pissy because he has to pay bills?
refreshertowel t1_jbpaa85 wrote
Yes, of course. The landlords are constantly losing money and it's bizarre that the shitty tenants would complain when they have such an amazing deal.
EeyoresM8 t1_jbp3hxa wrote
They don't own your house, they let you live in their house. The right to housing is different to the right to own your own house.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments