Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Landlordism

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 11:13:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Landlords like governments unjustly plunder you.

A landlord can extract millions of dollars from an apartment that costs only thousands in labor and resources.

To make things worse, every payment to the landlord does not change the % of your ownership in the apartment.

Landlordism is state-backed plunder in that the landlords externalize 100% of their enforcement costs onto the tax paying working class.

Who pays for the enforcement of state defined property titles? That is right, the working class pays. All taxes are passed down the economic ladder.

Absentee ownership is only possible because of the state. Individual active use is the only just title to property. The individual can maintain their own living space and work place.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 11:56:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Under state capitalism, I will agree that landlordism has some problems because the primary cost, enforcement of property rights, is paid for primarily by the residents through taxes to the state rather than by the landlord through payments to a private enforcing agency. This unjustly subsidizes the entire market at the expense of the consumer.

However, I disagree in principle with how Reasoning defines who has a right to property. If Reasoning owns a property and he wishes to charge people a certain fee in exchange for allowing them to reside in it for a certain duration of time, I don't see how he can be held at fault. It may be true that it is the tenants and not him that make primary use of the property, but if he fairly acquired it then he, and not his tenants, should be entitled to ownership of it regardless.

I disagree that absentee ownership is made possible only by the state; such claims can be enforced privately. This would transfer the costs back up the economic ladder.

I very much doubt that Reasoning would agree that if he allowed someone to use his lawnmower for a small fee, that person would be entitled to it thereafter. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit on what you mean, since I may be jumping too far in my objections.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 12:24:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Reasoning, if landlordism wasn't allowed, there'd be no apartments, which are very convenient for many people. How would you prevent landlordism without coercive government?

Additionally, after the landlord's building costs have been regained, competition will drive the prices low enough to only cover the costs of utilities and other administrative services.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 11:43:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Absentee ownership is only possible because of the state. Individual active use is the only just title to property. The individual can maintain their own living space and work place.

Well, that isn't exactly true. In absense of a state, abenstee ownership exist through use of force. This area of land is mine, if you don't like it fight me and take it from me. If you are unwilling to do that, pay me to live on it. That is the way it happened through most of history. The idea of state was actually a step in the right direction away from absentee ownership because the state will ensure your property rights (as long as you can afford the property to begin with).

The idea that individual use is the only just title to property is more of a moral issue and I agree with you to an extent. But as others have pointed out, if this idea was fully implemented there would be no apartments to begin with...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2011 11:16:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Landlords acquire land through unjust means and use the ends of these unjust means as leverage to fulfill personal greed against the grain of social efficiency - perpetuating immorality and gross inequity. Under the capitalists' definitions of property rights, it's perfectly ethical and legal for a nation to move in, destroy the current inhabitants with weapons, plant a flag, and appropriate these property rights in any way they see fit. As long as they set up a free market system in the wake of the destruction, none of you will have an argument to make to resist such ridiculousness. How could you? You support the U.S.'s ability to do it against American Indians...
no comment
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:12:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Those who allege that there would be no apartments without landlordism have some explaining to do. Why wouldn't people just buy what they now rent or something humbler? Making lower income living space is as simple as conceiving a 2-bedroom apartment as 2 studios with a common area or erecting a wall, but much of the new demand would simply be met by vacancies created when the tenants of the desired domicile bought smaller quarters. It's only the most luxurious residential property, that least likely to be apartments, that might cease to exist as such. Fulfilling an additional mutualist demand, the abolition of interest, would only increase the downward mobility. No one is going to respond to the literally shrinking apartment market by preferring, say, a new bed to not being homeless, so no bed-maker is going to offer the last landlord a better price for his apartments than prospective inhabitants (limited in number only by the fire code).

The idea that laissez-faire capitalism would eliminate the landlord's profits is equally naive, based as it is on a stale economic model in which competitors and their capitals come on the scene from nowhere, suffer no barriers to entry, and cannot cooperate. Models that make fewer and more realistic assumptions tell a different story. But the fact is that land is a clear exception to even the hopelessly flawed economic model the ancaps here hazily pledge allegiance to. Land is not in the strict sense a commodity. Its value lies largely in its location, which is of course unique. If my land is in a better location than yours, all the money in the world can't make you a true competitor, because we are in monopolistic competition; my rents are limited not by your rents, but by the sum of your rents and the difference in value between the respective locations of our respective real estate.

But the question remains, would the end of landlordism make the working class better off? It's of course absurd to assume as Reasoning apparently does that people would own what they now rent without crippling mortgages (if they did, it would only be because of the suddenness of the change in rules, equivalent to a redistribution of wealth). But that people would have to initially move to lower income housing only implies that they'd be worse off from the neoclassical perspective, in which people act in their long-term interests. Such perspective happens to be completely at odds with science. Why would evolution select for such genes when one's reproductive years are precisely the short-term? People rent not because it's wise or they're not, but because there's no reason for them to care about the comfort of their twilight years. From the point of view of evolution, our future selves are but strangers, less worthy of altruism than even the most distant cousin. From that point of view, it's entirely possible, without implying that people are irrational, that the impermissibility of renting would yield more utilitarian results.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 10:06:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would like to see property dismissed altogether. One has a territory that, once occupied, does not relinquish until the death of the occupant and does not transfer to the occupant's offspring - all under the umbrella of AnCom of course.
no comment
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:05:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 10:06:53 PM, Caramel wrote:
I would like to see property dismissed altogether. One has a territory that, once occupied, does not relinquish until the death of the occupant and does not transfer to the occupant's offspring - all under the umbrella of AnCom of course.

While I agree with the dismissal of the conventional notion of property, I fail to see how making it non-transferable is necessary or sufficient to end its inefficiencies or inequities. Why should one granted sole authority to make all other manner of decisions regarding a territory not be granted the authority to transfer it? The only semi-sensible answer I can think of is that the right of transfer, unlike the right of other acts, effectively makes one's authority permanent. But a second glance reveals that transfer is neither necessary nor sufficient for permanence. It's unnecessary not only because death is unnecessary, but also because a great many acts besides transfer are of permanent consequence to the property; it's insufficient because it's unnecessary (and ill-advised) to consider death the only other permissible end to the territory-occupier's reign. If instead complete redistribution occurs at regular intervals, it's unnecessary to forbid transfer.

Such a system also allows for a sensible answer to the begged question of who decides who comes to own the unowned. The anarchist answer, he who occupies it, is sensible only if it's sensible to roll dice to determine the economy. The communist answer, he who most needs it, begs the question of who judges need and how they do it. But the best judge of need is what one is willing to sacrifice (how much one is willing to spend). Willingness to spend is not the same as spending, which one normally becomes able to do through primitive accumulation, condensation and intergenerational transfer of wealth. Willingness to spend can only reveal itself in the context of equal ability to spend, which is to say equal funds, which is to say collectivism.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 10:16:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 1:05:01 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 2/7/2011 10:06:53 PM, Caramel wrote:
I would like to see property dismissed altogether. One has a territory that, once occupied, does not relinquish until the death of the occupant and does not transfer to the occupant's offspring - all under the umbrella of AnCom of course.

While I agree with the dismissal of the conventional notion of property, I fail to see how making it non-transferable is necessary or sufficient to end its inefficiencies or inequities. Why should one granted sole authority to make all other manner of decisions regarding a territory not be granted the authority to transfer it? The only semi-sensible answer I can think of is that the right of transfer, unlike the right of other acts, effectively makes one's authority permanent. But a second glance reveals that transfer is neither necessary nor sufficient for permanence. It's unnecessary not only because death is unnecessary, but also because a great many acts besides transfer are of permanent consequence to the property; it's insufficient because it's unnecessary (and ill-advised) to consider death the only other permissible end to the territory-occupier's reign. If instead complete redistribution occurs at regular intervals, it's unnecessary to forbid transfer.

OK back up for a second, I 'm not saying one couldn't transfer it I'm just saying that each person gets one property, and you can't occupy a valuable piece of land and then just keep procreating to hold onto it. If I occupy a territory parcel, then I can of course move to another one but I forfeit that parcel. Trading is irrelevant because it is not property; it's simply a matter of deciding where each person sleeps and lives. And I know the capitalists are watching and can't wait to address the problem of 'who gets the best/worst parcels' - obviously some pieces of land are more valuable and we'd still have a conflict. My answer is that sustainable neighborhood planning resolves this by failing to create worthless tracts of land in undesirable locations. This is actually quite easy to do and only seems difficult because of the grid system we use now which is not only horrible in the utilitarian sense but also destroys the environment.

Such a system also allows for a sensible answer to the begged question of who decides who comes to own the unowned. The anarchist answer, he who occupies it, is sensible only if it's sensible to roll dice to determine the economy. The communist answer, he who most needs it, begs the question of who judges need and how they do it. But the best judge of need is what one is willing to sacrifice (how much one is willing to spend). Willingness to spend is not the same as spending, which one normally becomes able to do through primitive accumulation, condensation and intergenerational transfer of wealth. Willingness to spend can only reveal itself in the context of equal ability to spend, which is to say equal funds, which is to say collectivism.

I wouldn't resort to rolling dice just because I'm an anarchist; people are going to manage their commune in a public way even in the absence of an overarching government. How? That is up to the commune. They can gather often and use dispute-resolution and democracy to make decisions... What you said about what you are "willing" to spend has some merit as well, and interests can be weighed and agreed on by neighbors in a personal way instead of resorting to cold, rigid policies that are horribly inadequate to solving society's ills (holds breath in anticipation of Ragnar's "no such thing as society" argument).
no comment
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:38:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 10:16:36 AM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/8/2011 1:05:01 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
While I agree with the dismissal of the conventional notion of property, I fail to see how making it non-transferable is necessary or sufficient to end its inefficiencies or inequities. Why should one granted sole authority to make all other manner of decisions regarding a territory not be granted the authority to transfer it? The only semi-sensible answer I can think of is that the right of transfer, unlike the right of other acts, effectively makes one's authority permanent. But a second glance reveals that transfer is neither necessary nor sufficient for permanence. It's unnecessary not only because death is unnecessary, but also because a great many acts besides transfer are of permanent consequence to the property; it's insufficient because it's unnecessary (and ill-advised) to consider death the only other permissible end to the territory-occupier's reign. If instead complete redistribution occurs at regular intervals, it's unnecessary to forbid transfer.

OK back up for a second, I 'm not saying one couldn't transfer it I'm just saying that each person gets one property, and you can't occupy a valuable piece of land and then just keep procreating to hold onto it. If I occupy a territory parcel, then I can of course move to another one but I forfeit that parcel. Trading is irrelevant because it is not property; it's simply a matter of deciding where each person sleeps and lives. And I know the capitalists are watching and can't wait to address the problem of 'who gets the best/worst parcels' - obviously some pieces of land are more valuable and we'd still have a conflict. My answer is that sustainable neighborhood planning resolves this by failing to create worthless tracts of land in undesirable locations. This is actually quite easy to do and only seems difficult because of the grid system we use now which is not only horrible in the utilitarian sense but also destroys the environment.

But the grid system isn't the only factor of the variability of land value. Some factors are natural (e.g. variable proximity to beaches), and many others are only bad if we assume everyone has the same utility functions. But in fact some people care more than others about where they live, and some people's ideas of a good place to live are abnormal. We could, to continue with the beach example, make all tracts of land long thin lines extending from the shore to the middle of the land mass, or make beachfront tracts very small in comparison to inland tracts, but it would be more efficient to distribute land via egalitarian market forces: give each more-or-less individual unit (less, of course, as whatever level is chosen (an acre of land in Philadelphia, say), a smaller level can always be imagined (say, a square foot of land on Market Street)) an initial price (the initial price doesn't matter, could be arbitrary, but would better be based on the previous year's final prices and trends); let each individual (or group, if the constituent individuals have chosen to organize) tentatively "rent" whatever land they desire, using their more or less equal funds; let prices fluctuate via a supply and demand function (e.g. new price equals old price times demand divided by supply); repeat until equilibrium is reached. Under this system, how one relocates is obvious: they pay the true value of their new land, which is effectively to say they forfeit some equivalent combination of leisure and, more likely, consumption (probably their old land).

How one relocates under AnCom, as you describe it, is rather a mystery. Unless AnCom scorns efficiency enough to maintain a continuous, varied and abundant supply of undedicated land, he who would relocate must wait for someone else to relocate; and because that someone else is similarly constrained, relocation is effectively limited to trading places (not trade strictly speaking, just reciprocal forfeiture and occupation). Why should this be? To ensure the occupant's inaliable right to his property called "territory"? Such right is imaginary. Each would be better off if he and each other had equal opportunity with regard to everything. If having lived in a place all one's life effects some sentimental attachment, its value will emerge in the egalitarian market, where he will naturally be willing to sacrifice more for it than those with no sentimental attachment to it.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:26:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"The most comfortable, but also the most unproductive way for a capitalist to increase his fortune, is to put all monies in sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has to pay his price." -- Andrew Carnegie
President of DDO