491–500 of 930 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could grow either by people making their own houses on their own, or by them finding others who would help with this process, or by paying someone for the labor required for the house to get build. I think that private property should not get nationalized.
Right, so basically you want the system we currently have?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there. How is the current system not strong taking whatever they can? Private property is just a legitimized theft, because it leaves some people without access to land or natural resources that is required for survival. It's not true that without private property you get state slavery or a strongman situation,…
For most of human history, people fought over the right for members of their group to put up a hut or yurt on a piece of land. And/Or some other, more powerful group would come and take whatever they wanted, including sex and slaves, from other, weaker groups of humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make it financially risky to own a rental property you're also making it more risky and thus less profitable to buy and rent out apartments. This hurts both renters and the potential landlords. It would be much better to just increase property taxes.. Speaking as a Dane, this kind kind of economically illiterate leftist lawlessness is an important reason why Spain is poorer both poorer and has a worse welfare…
Ok, but first: is it financially risky right now to own properties? No, based on the data we have. Second: can renters be hurt even more? Are landlords the most vulnerable people right now? The situation is pretty awful right now, while at the same time there are people whose sole contribution to society is "owning flats". And I agree on increasing property taxes (any progressive taxes over capital would do).
Increasing risk will eliminate a lot of the "mom and pop" landlords (widows, former small-business owners, retirees, etc.). If it is too risky to own only a few extra condo units or a single small apartment building, then those properties will go to large corporate landlords.
> there are people whose sole contribution to society is "owning flats".
Landlords make sure the utilities (water, electricity, heat, etc.) work, that the roof doesn't leak, fix plumbing issues when they arise, take care of pest infestations, etc. Even landlords who don't personally fix things are employing managers and tradespeople. And with big corporate owners, the shareholders are usually pension funds which effectively are the retirement savings of people who have already "contributed to society".
Its not Spain's problem. Its the real estate sector's problem. Both the legitimate okupas and illegitimate 'professional' okupas do serve the purpose of forcing the real estate owners to actually USE their real estate instead of being able to let them sit empty. They either live in them, sell them or rent them - which helps to address the housing demand. Compare this to the US where such a phenomenon does not exist:…
As a property owner you can keep your property empty seeking a better rent value, but this forces you to realize that there is a risk to keeping the place unused and maybe accepting lower price would be better overall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Refusing to pay for a place to live is simply theft and entitlement. They expect people to build and maintain homes for them while doing nothing in return. If you abolish property rights, your two options are state slavery or anarchy where the strong take whatever they can. These misguided ideologies can only live parasitic ally on the fringe of a otherwise functional society. If they got their way, the society would…
For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there. How is the current system not strong taking whatever they can? Private property is just a legitimized theft, because it leaves some people without access to land or natural resources that is required for survival. It's not true that without private property you get state slavery or a strongman situation,…
There were breif periods where humans entered virgin land, but these people migrated because other land and resources were spoken for.
>Private property is just a legitimized theft, because it leaves some people without access to land or natural resources that is required for survival.
This is reverse reasoning. people lacking resources doesn't imply it was stolen from them. The alternative is that they simply didn't start with any.
Rights don't derive from wants or needs.
My wanting a pony does not give me a natural right to a pony. My hunger does not give me a natural right to food
>It's not true that without private property you get state slavery or a strongman situation, you may check Zapatistas
The zapititistas did not acquire all their land, people, and resources through free choice, nor were people free to stop collaborating if they chose.
Its not Spain's problem. Its the real estate sector's problem. Both the legitimate okupas and illegitimate 'professional' okupas do serve the purpose of forcing the real estate owners to actually USE their real estate instead of being able to let them sit empty. They either live in them, sell them or rent them - which helps to address the housing demand. Compare this to the US where such a phenomenon does not exist:…
> Both the legitimate okupas and illegitimate 'professional' okupas do serve the purpose of forcing the real estate owners to actually USE their real estate instead of being able to let them sit empty. Total nonsense, Spanish new recently reported the case when couple went for 3 months trip only to find their apartment squatted. Spain has no property rights for smaller folks.
That said, yes, its possible that an actual single-home owner family from working class may end up with okupas in their home occasionally. But that's a negligible price to pay in return for preventing real estate sharks like those in the US from scooping up housing to profit by screwing everyone over.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/homes-for-sale-affordable-housi...
I have family who let out property in Spain. They, along with other people in a similar position to them, have all suddenly become experts in smart home tech. They have video doorbells, motion sensors, door sensors, etc. All so that they can be alerted to any activity immediately, allowing them to act within the exceptionally short eviction window. The reality on the ground is that these ridiculous policies are widel…
I don't agree. It's a non-existing problem that the media insists us to convince otherwise, just to force us to pay for useless and absurdly expensive monthly services. Poor people being afraid of other poor people, a classic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't have a freedom that's conditional on somebody else's forced labour.
It's not conditional of somebody else's forced labor, why do you think that?
And if your answer is to take all the existing houses and give them, one to each family that needs a place to stay, that's great in the short term. In the long term, though, who's going to build a new one when it will just be taken from them? And if nobody builds new ones, where are new ones going to come from, as the population continues to grow?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So nobody is forced to build shelter, but if someone does build one for themselves, it can be taken? Just trying to understand how this right to shelter works.
It's crucial to understand that if we let a person that build a shelter keep it for eternity then that person can build many shelters such that there will be no land left for other people to build their shelters on.
This is why in a society free from theft, one must build or make something for exchange to get things you want.
I don't see why buying two plots and building two houses entitles someone else to one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Those policies that force the real estate owners to use their properties instead of letting them sit empty and appreciate for profit like in the US are ridiculous. The not-ridiculous policy is allowing them to cripple the entire society for profit by doing the opposite. It works very well. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/homes-for-sale-affordable-housi...
Perhaps that's the intent of the policy. The actual outcome on the other hand harms people who are using their properties. - Holidays lets - Standard lets where there's a changeover - Properties for sale - Your own home when you're on holiday Your comment is completely disconnected from the reality of the situation facing ordinary middle-class people. Maybe you could argue that squatters need support but subsidising…
The actual outcome is that the policy does force people to use their houses and increase the available rental houses.
> ordinary middle-class people.
You seem to have meant 'working-class'. Outside the US nobody calls them 'middle class'. Middle class people in Spain would be white collar professionals who own more than one house. You people are literally making up things about a country that you don't know about.
No. It does not cause issues for the 'working class'. Okupas don't target single home owner working class people. They target at least white collar professionals, and actually much richer aristocrats and investment funds.
> subsidising them is the role of the state, not a job for individual citizens.
That's what you think. Your culture thinks. This is a different society. They think differently.