• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    126 months ago

    The issue with that is that you’re still making money on a human right. That property is gonna gain value and eventually you’ll be able to sell it for more than you bought it for, all on the back of the tenants. Unless you’re planning to give the tenants the house when they pay the value of it but at that point there’s no reason for you the own it to begin with.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I’m confused. Are you saying people shouldn’t have to pay for housing? For food? For electricity?

      They’re providing/enabling the human right. Why do you describe it as if they were making money off of necessity without trade and giving?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        136 months ago

        I’m saying landlords are parasites and there’s no way to excuse what they do as a good thing or necessary.

      • Transporter Room 3
        link
        fedilink
        English
        116 months ago

        “they’re providing/enabling…”

        WOAH there, pardner.

        They don’t PROVIDE anything.

        They hoard a finite resource for financial gain. Full stop.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        86 months ago

        Yes. I would say people shouldn’t have to pay for the basic necessities required to live. Why should anyone live with the threat of homelessness and starvation?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          46 months ago

          Because it takes time and resources and create and maintain housing… who will pay for it, and why is it the landlord’s fault instead of whoever isn’t taking that responsibility (government???).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        66 months ago

        They’re providing/enabling the human right.

        You are literally saying that your human rights should be privately owned by somebody else. If that’s the case, why even bother with human rights?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          You gotta separate the concept of a right from fulfilling them.

          You can have a human right. But that alone does not answer how it is fulfilled.

          The right is not owned. It can’t be.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            36 months ago

            You gotta separate the concept of a right from fulfilling them.

            Says who?

            If a human right only exists on paper it’s not a right - it’s a buzzterm for political racketeers to throw around. Fulfilling a “bill of rights” is the core part of the (so-called) “social contract” between the liberal state and it’s subjects - if it’s merely “fulfilling” those by pretending they exist, the existence of the liberal state - and liberalism itself - becomes irrelevant and unjustifiable to the subjects.

      • Queue
        link
        fedilink
        English
        56 months ago

        My landlord didn’t pay for nor make the land my place is on. Nor the place I reside on. Yet he jacks up the rent every march as soon as he can, as much as he legally can.

        My landlord doesn’t clean the lots, doesn’t clean the public bathrooms, doesn’t do anything but come on by to complain about the lots he doesn’t improve.

        How he is providing anything but less money in my family’s bank account, and an headache to everyone he complains to?