So while I’m undecided on landlords, I think your logic is flawed. Are you saying that criticising the concept of owning land and charging people for housing is the same as being born into a socially constructed group or the same as choosing or being born into a organization structured around shared beliefs? Because I’m not sure they’re quite the same thing.
No, I’m saying that it’s unfair to criticize an entire group of people for the actions of some people who happen to belong to the same group while the rest are perfectly fine contributors to society.
On the other hand, if the sole purpose of the group is to spread hate/cause unrest/violence then I’d be okay with hating the entire group.
Hating landlord-ism as a concept makes sense to a certain extent, but I’m yet to see a realistic alternative provided by anyone. Hating landlords is something that I don’t agree with. --> this seems to be a controversial stance.
Along the same lines, I hate religion but I don’t hate all religious people. --> this isn’t that controversial a stance. They’re both essentially the same to me.
A realistic alternative? The occupant owns the dwelling. That removes the problem entirely. People can’t afford to buy? Well if you can’t own residential property you don’t live in. Prices will correct.
Alternatively, the government historically has given most middle class Americans the majority of their generational wealth through land gift programs, then you gave first time homeowner loans, which could easily be retooled to give the property to those living there and have all payments go towards ownership,
There’s so many options better than someone fucking you in the ass as hard as they can so you can bearly survive.
I’m not from the US so correct me if I’m wrong - didn’t the governments of US and Canada give away land in what was essentially “bumfuck nowhere”? Isn’t land still cheap in comparable locations?
If only people who live on the property are allowed to own it then prices might go down a bit. Say 50%, a number that I’m pulling out of my ass. I genuinely don’t believe that demand in cities will let prices go down by even that much. But even with a 50% crash, a shit ton of people would never get to live in a city (someone who just moved out of their parents’ home, someone who is recovering from a loss due to a bad business, someone who just immigrated etc.)
So what would be the solution to those people? Live in a few hundred kms away from the city and commute every day?
As much as I’d like to own property in the city that I live in, I don’t think banning landlords will lower prices enough for me to buy a house here. So, I’d rather rent and live in the city than go live in some village.
So while I’m undecided on landlords, I think your logic is flawed. Are you saying that criticising the concept of owning land and charging people for housing is the same as being born into a socially constructed group or the same as choosing or being born into a organization structured around shared beliefs? Because I’m not sure they’re quite the same thing.
No, I’m saying that it’s unfair to criticize an entire group of people for the actions of some people who happen to belong to the same group while the rest are perfectly fine contributors to society.
On the other hand, if the sole purpose of the group is to spread hate/cause unrest/violence then I’d be okay with hating the entire group.
Hating landlord-ism as a concept makes sense to a certain extent, but I’m yet to see a realistic alternative provided by anyone. Hating landlords is something that I don’t agree with. --> this seems to be a controversial stance.
Along the same lines, I hate religion but I don’t hate all religious people. --> this isn’t that controversial a stance. They’re both essentially the same to me.
A realistic alternative? The occupant owns the dwelling. That removes the problem entirely. People can’t afford to buy? Well if you can’t own residential property you don’t live in. Prices will correct.
Alternatively, the government historically has given most middle class Americans the majority of their generational wealth through land gift programs, then you gave first time homeowner loans, which could easily be retooled to give the property to those living there and have all payments go towards ownership,
There’s so many options better than someone fucking you in the ass as hard as they can so you can bearly survive.
I’m not from the US so correct me if I’m wrong - didn’t the governments of US and Canada give away land in what was essentially “bumfuck nowhere”? Isn’t land still cheap in comparable locations?
If only people who live on the property are allowed to own it then prices might go down a bit. Say 50%, a number that I’m pulling out of my ass. I genuinely don’t believe that demand in cities will let prices go down by even that much. But even with a 50% crash, a shit ton of people would never get to live in a city (someone who just moved out of their parents’ home, someone who is recovering from a loss due to a bad business, someone who just immigrated etc.)
So what would be the solution to those people? Live in a few hundred kms away from the city and commute every day?
As much as I’d like to own property in the city that I live in, I don’t think banning landlords will lower prices enough for me to buy a house here. So, I’d rather rent and live in the city than go live in some village.