There is no need to read any books, you have given me the blueprint to always be instantly right.

No, that would also fail, because of human nature. You have cracked the code my man. There is no need to make any further use of your brain.

Ok. I mean I personally believe with application of reforms and laws you can incrementally get things better. And it’s more about fighting corruption than trusting in the integrity of humanity.

Nope, not possible. Human sucks. I’m sorry you believe in fairy tales like that. You’re going to try and “reform” and it won’t work because of human nature. Please take this seriously. Please be logical.

My brother in Christ, we have reached a conclusion. Human beings are bad by nature. Better things aren’t possible.

Sure, whatever. You’re right. Just go and do your thing. Appeal-to-nature your away out of every dilemma that’s presented to you. I’m not going to spend any effort on you for the same reason I wouldn’t spend any effort on a crazy QAnon person.

It’s not difficult for me to write like this. It takes very little effort. It’s also a bit sad that it intimidates you so much.

There are solutions we can talk about. Rent-to-own, central housing commissions, urban planning reforms. We are not getting there because you are dodging the vital question, which is “are you a shitty person or not”

I should have trusted my instinct. You are completely unserious. Hope you grow out of it.

I believed in a perfect world everyone should have everything they need. I also believe we do not live in a perfect world.

That’s intellectually lazy. I described something that is both easy to conceive of and (in my opinion) completely achievable with modern means. At this point we should be talking about implementation details and not acting like “housing humans” is a pie-in-the-sky idea. You are the outlier if you think it is. You have to defend that abnormal belief.

Do I believe the current system is broken? Yes. Do I believe reform would work? Yes. Do I believe I’ve seen any kind of plan or actionable theory of how to change it? No.

I am trying to get there. First, admit that it’s both a possibility and a worthwhile goal. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

Ideally yes governments and economies would serve humanity- again we don’t live in an ideal world and the human condition will always prevent that.

Again, this is intellectually lazy, and completely without substance. If you truly believe that, then just don’t have opinions. Don’t question the credibility of others. Be a consoomer and live your life never thinking of injustice.

We both know that’s not how humans work. The human condition is incredibly malleable. We built modern civilization on moral education. We should in theory only get better at that, so long as we can see people’s material needs fulfilled. Historical progress is synonymous with the adoption of shared principles for the greater good of the collective.

I also believe that if these things were to be done it would involve the government- not me- providing these things. In this ideal situation I would also be allowed to buy property(or whatever thing) and rent it to those who can’t afford it themselves. This means more taxes and excluding lobbying, gerrymandering, corruption in general. I believe every system fails to corruption because that’s just the human condition.

I despise this idea liberals have that humans are necessarily greedy or corrupt or what-have-you, but if that really is the case, then why would you design your system purely around self-interest? Why would you allow slumlords to run rampant with no accountability? Why not remove greed from the equation and collectivize housing?

Yes that’s sort of what happened when ussr collapsed- not entirely. A lot of the apartments went to the current residents… like alot alot. There’s a reason I know this. However what you mentioned also happened. And it sucks. It’s not fair. But there’s no way to be fair about it. Now the legitimate (uncontested) government has control of things and that’s just where we go from now. Going back through history is pointless.

Then there is nothing to enforce its legitimacy other than violence. In other words, the state is legitimate, until it is overthrown with violence. I’m glad we agree on that. Lenin had the right idea.

I also disagree that shouting at people is effective. Especially when you appear to be shouting x when you really mean y.

I’m not talking about shouting. I’m talking about appearing cooler and smarter than your opposition. Yes, it’s fucking stupid. Yes, it works. Welcome to modern politics.

I’m much more willing to listen to someone who lays out a well constructed argument rather than some rhetoric that on its own makes no sense.

You’ve given me pretty much nothing but prevarication, so I frankly doubt that.

sowwy

Frankly, you seem like a decent enough person. I see no point in being condescending anymore. But before we seriously talk about housing, we have at least two hard problems to solve. The first being :

without devolving to “I have a philosophical disagreement”

It may very well lead to that. If I believe that not only housing but also housing security are inalienable human rights, and you instead believe that these things should be earned, then what we have there is a hard contradiction. If you and I agree on that, and you happen to believe that capitalism with well implemented reforms is the best way to achieve that goal, then we could get somewhere.

Even better if you have a real alternative for people that doesn’t involve stealing people’s property.

This also poisons the well a little bit. When the French overthrew their monarchy, they effectively “stole” land from the royal family and privatized it. Was that going too far, in a nation where serfdom was practiced? In other words, are property rights more important to you than human rights?

Conversely, when the soviet union collapsed, how do you think all that land was de-collectivized? Did they go back in time to 1917 and retrieve all the deeds of long-since-dead people, trace their descendants and just give the land to them? What if those descendants did not exist? No, what happened was : gangs armed with AKs and armored vehicles roamed the streets and enforced their claims. The Russia we know of today is the product of that period of time.

They are not unique in that way. In the western world, probably every single inch of private land was at some point under the dominion of a now-extinct polity and taken by force of arm. Is there a statute of limitations on “stealing” land? It’s kind of a big question right now, since we’re re-litigating the status of native Americans and all that stuff.

Now, if I argue that our economies should serve humanity rather than the other way around, are we in agreement?

If I argue that the simultaneous existence of empty houses and unhoused people on its own should be interpreted as a massive failure of our economic system, are we in agreement?

I suggested earlier that repeating strong and succinct messages was far more effective at shattering axioms than any form of long-winded debate. You interpreted that as promoting demagogy, and I can’t really blame you. Still, we can argue if we are comrades. Otherwise we’re in conflict. Does that make more sense now?

I was mostly trying to point out that you’re not as well informed as you think you are. Landlords being “evil” isn’t something I’m interested in demonstrating because there’s nothing materialist about that analysis. It’s just cathartic maoposting.

I can spend some time explaining why rent-seeking is unethical and a net loss for society. When I get back home and if I’m not too drunk.

It’s never whataboutism to point out hypocrisy. Denounce in a way that’s consistent and not self serving, or don’t do it.

Actually, you could rent out at a deficit, and still come out winning. I’m sorry but that was a trick question.

Tank the loss using personal income. Do this for a couple of years, and you have built enough equity on your homes to act as security for another mortgage. Now you have two renters paying you every month. Rinse, repeat.

Real estate is the safest investment, bar none. Do you want me to walk you through the implications of that?

You’re no longer saying “owner”, we’re making progress.

Now do tell us : if the combined revenue and appreciation of assets are not greater in value than the expenses (eg mortgages, services, taxes, opportunity cost), what point is there to being a landlord?

(This is a trick question, by the way)

Yeah sure the money flows like this : renter -> mystery black hole -> landlord -> bank

I was right not to take you seriously

Even ignoring the fact that the necessity of doing so is still hotly debated to this day, in my opinion that was always a hard argument to defend. We’re talking about upwards to two hundred and fifty thousand civilians.

The point is that renters pay for home equity. They just don’t earn home equity. Landlords retain 100% of that and 100% of the value gained by the asset. You are catastrophically wrong about that.

Whether or not you think that’s ethical, it’s still a fact.

The money does not disappear when it changes hands, nor is it laundered. Most landlords cannot afford any of these things if the houses that they own are not occupied by paying tenants.

I could give you the benefice of the doubt. However, this is the calibre of argument you’re throwing at us :

Did you pay half the down payment? Did you pay half the mortgage and interest to the bank? Did you pay half the property taxes? Did you pay half the maintenance?

The obvious answer is that yes, the tenant pays for all these things, because that’s why the landlord charges rent to begin with. This is such an obvious thing, irrespective of any political beliefs, that the mere fact of you having asked it makes you suspect. I’m not even trying to be mean to you here, I’m just describing the situation as I see it.

Well, we either ignore deaths or we don’t. The United States of America ran the largest slave trade in history and nearly wiped out the native population of an entire continent, nuked two cities, overthrew countless democracies, and bankrolled/trained fascist and/or religious fundamentalist militias all over the world. This is all historical fact.

But it also represents one of the strongest cultures in history, as well historical advancements in science, technology, civics, etc. Just like the USSR. Whereas the Nazis only represent industrialized genocide, eugenics and fascist oppression, the Soviet Union and the USA represent both the good and bad of humanity in extreme amounts. Their evils can be denounced just as much as their successes can be celebrated, and more usefully both can and should be studied and not completely discarded on weak ideological grounds. That’s why they’re both admissible in civil discussion.

Hexbear is very into counter-narrative, and I’m guessing a lot of them would disagree with my take here, but I think that if liberals and communists can’t find middle ground in that then liberals are simply not representing themselves honestly.

This is a good post, but I think the person you’re replying to is trying to bait a ton of belief statements out of you so that they can then piss you off by contradicting each one with effortless status-quo normalizing, and use that as a justification to defederate Hexbear. That, or they’re just going to dig their heels in and you’ll have wasted your time.

I can definitely see why you would want to be protected from us