Those land-owning peasant farmers are utilizing their possessive property rights, and to deny them of that would be an obvious injustice. Just because government forces under the guise of socialism have committed great injustices behind the claim of correcting property rights doesn't mean that Proudhon's words are any less true.
No, they purchased a property on a bet that they could rent it to someone else and pad the mortgage. The situation being discussed in particular were urban property owners who bought multi-unit properties, then couldn't afford these during the economic crisis.
That a fucking landlord is saying this is so cosmically insane to me I think I have ascended.
sorry I wasn't clear. My post was in agreement with you that despite that twitter thread, "ugly produce" absolutely is still a thing. Where ugly produce happens can be argued, but to say it doesn't is to ignore reality.
Given what I was responding to, are you suggesting that private ownership of basically anything will be going away?
Well, all property you pay a mortgage on is something you risk losing if the economy crashes, even if you can easily afford it at the time. That's the same if a renter can afford their rent, then suddenly cannot because of economic circumstances beyond their control. And we were talking about NYC, where a multi-unit home is basically a single family home that you've decided you wont use the basement for and decided to rent out for some extra income.
Please elaborate, what is so comical about it?
Have you considered the other waste that goes on under the profit driven system that is capitalism? Like we literally produce too much food?
So, in this hypothetical world, how does food production and distribution work, given that at no point does anyone actually own it?
I think it's the idea that you are charging for something that you admit is a basic need that everyone should have. The implication of shelter being a basic need is that...everyone should be provided that regardless of income. Being a landlord, at least on it's face, involves taking a form of shelter and only allowing those with enough income for rent to live there, so that you can profit.
Roads are owned. There are plenty of privately owned roads, and the remainder are owned (and maintained) by the state. Are you arguing for all the farms being seized, owned and operated by the government then? Because that's pretty much the only way you can have no private ownership of a necessity. Even then, how far do you take it? Do I own the food in my own fridge? Do I own the food I grow myself? (I can't presumably say "on my own land", since I'm guessing with shelter being a necessity I no longer have the ability to own land in the first place.)
Because you are profiting from a basic need and demanding empathy for it
The roads I drive on are owned by the government. :D They're built with taxpayer money.
Yes! If there's no motive for profit, there's no motive to overproduce. And it's not unheard of for the government to distribute food. In the US government cheese is a thing. The dairy industry overproduces milk and cheese in vast quantity, crashing their prices. So the US Government has repeatedly had to step in and buy cheese to keep the dairy industry from destroying itself. In the past the cheese that wasn't able to be given away was packed into caves and just left there.
I knew what he was getting at. As previously stated here, I'm a Section 8 landlord so I kind of provide government housing anyway.
I'm sorry but you added a lot of your own context to the things I've said. I've already stated in this thread that I support free housing. I've expressed how the system can screw over 100 percent of people, not a tiny fraction. I was just responding to someone who said they'd have no sympathy for that segment then you started arguing with me.
I demanding empathy for it? I said I'd personally have empathy for anyone who loses their living space whether they owned it or not. I never demanded the other guy do the same but I was curious why he wouldn't.
I don't profit from basic needs and I'm doing.
I don't think you want it changed, not in any way that would substantially help people.
Your money would go into your home yes, but a LOT of it is going to go to the bank in interest for your first 10 years or so. Property has got to be a long term investment if you're thinking about it that way. That, or you're in an up and coming neighborhood.
Baseless assumption since you don't know me, but that's fine if you'd like to believe that.
