• solstice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Who pays is a very valid question because right now you guys are all saying the owner should pay instead of the squatter. Then you go on to talk about tax money which implies the govt should pay. We live in a world of finite goods and resources which is why things are the way they are. These comments are like letters to Santa.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      They’re like letters to Santa if Santa were alive and perfectly capable of delivering the presents if he just did what he should. There’s finite resources, but there’s still far more than enough to go around.

      • solstice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Right, if only this mean rich person would go against their best interest and do something stupid. But they didn’t because there’s zero incentive to do so, because what you and everyone in this thread is suggesting is a bad decision to make of one’s own free will. So other folks are arguing the gov should step in and, what, force the owner to rent their unit to the squatter for free just because she’s old I guess?

        I challenge you to codify your position. Meaning, if someone is over X years of age they get free rent? Or the gov pays their rent? Or if someone is over such and such net worth they have to give free rent to people? Or something? You’re just not making any sense and you’re arguing out of pure pathos, emotionally laden incoherent thoughts that you can’t build a functioning economy out of.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I’ll codify my position: housing should be a human right. Either the government should pay for rent (up to some value) or the government should control the property and not charge rent. It’s not that hard to understand. We easily have enough money in this nation to do this.

          Check out “What is Property.” Land is something that all humans need to live, whether that’s for shelter, food, or water. How did these people come to own land? It’d be absurd to suggest they could own air and charge rent for it, right? Why can they do so for land? Land ownership was made up by governments by saying they control it and selling it, removing it from the commons into private control, giving the people nothing in return.

          • solstice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            the government should control the property and not charge rent. It’s not that hard to understand

            Yes it is hard to understand because we are having this conversation despite it being a ridiculous idea. If the gov controls the property and doesn’t charge rent, it doesn’t lower the cost. The value of that property doesn’t go away. It just changes hands from the private owner into the gov agency (or worse, agent) who controls who gets to live there. Imagine a neighborhood where everything costs $10k/month to live there, but you control who gets to live in that one place that costs $1,000/month. Think of how powerful a position that is. The value of that rental property didn’t magically disappear just because the government waived its magic wand and said so. Economics doesn’t work that way, and it’s really frustrating talking to people who don’t get this. You can’t solve these issues by decree.