I think they clearly expressed they were going through some hard times. I don’t think that’s necessarily a sin. And I don’t think one comment we all disagree (landlords) is a good lone reason to ban. Did I miss something? Not trying to stir the pot I just think patience and compassion should always come first.
The problem with citing these mom and pop landords is that they are a tiny minority in the land holding class and are used as a technicality to derail the conversation.
Obviously if someone says redact the landlords, it is not meant that literally every single person who has rented out land will be redacted.
The mom and pop landlords are used to distract from that fact in most capitalist countries, the land distribution is highly unequitable and billions are made by a few by the way of renting out owned properties. Using one of these as an example to go to “most landowners are working class” is a giant leap in logic. Then it is topped off by a nihilistic “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism”.
I mean there is no ethical consumption under capitalism tho.
Which is why we need to hang the billionaires and politicians and build socialism instead.
Thank you for a good reply. But, i dont agree with the premise that these types of landlords are such a minority that it can be ignored by calling them a «technicality to derail the conversation».
I belive the ratio of how many rentals the general landowner own is corresponding with the general wealth. The higher the more rentals.
What Zero said was
And as yourself just said
Imo we are all agreeing that not all landowners should face the wall. It can be more nuanced than that and its important to explain these things. They certainly wont learn it in school.
Maybe he is speaking from personal experiences when he said «most landowners are working class», maybe he is young. Anyway, in general its better to try to teach people, especially when they already show great interest for the same ideas as us.
And lets be real; there is no ethical consumption under capitalism 😄
The reason I brought “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” is that one cannot just say that to justify anything willy nilly. It is one thing, for example, to drive to work in a car because the urban planning of a capitalist system compels you but it is something to own a property, charge someone a significant portion of their monthly income to allow them live in it, and evict them if they are unable to pay rent.
I agree with mostly everything. The only thing i disagree with is, i think you are painting it very black and white. Not every landlord will «charge a significant portion of their monthly income to allow them live in it, and evict them if they are unable to pay rent.» and its necessary to be exact when talking about this. We dont want to be seen as merciless thugs.
A landlord today can by defition include a single parent full of debt, working 2-3 minimum wage jobs for some billionare while ‘renting out’ a bedroom to her son and his girlfriend that they pay with some goverment program or student loan, to some billionare with hundreds of inherited rental properties. Its alot of people in between.
You mean renting out a room in the home she lives in to her own son to get some grant from the government?
Yes, as an example. If she owns the house, she can by definition also be her own sons landlord if he is over 18 and are eligible for some kind of grant/benefits.
That’s not what anyone has in mind when they speak of landlord as a class.
Tried debating someone playing devil’s advocate?
Not sure what you mean