This is a completely useless stance when you want to figure out if rent itself is morally good or bad.
hard disagree. we have to examine things as they exist in the real world, not as we would like them to be. if we are only figuring out whether it would be good in principle, weāre failing to recognize whether that principle is actually founded on actual observable fact. and the observable facts say that rent has always been a potent tool for capitalists to extract wealth from people.
There is absolutely nothing wrong about this form of rent.
also disagree. why are these university students renting? schools could be providing housing to students if we invested public funds into that kind of project. what does the necessity of rent for students do in practice? well, the extra costs involved in having to rent space on the market in order to go to school structurally disadvantages marginalized students. students whose parents can cover the rent are able to maximize their time learning, take advantage of more extracurriculars, or save the money they make from a job for themselves, while students who canāt have to live in their cars, take jobs to cover costs, or just not get the education they want. the scale of the problem is smaller, but the nature of the problem is the same. those who have not must give their money to those who have in order to have a place to live.
lets just go through this. the supply of available property will always be limited. capitalism is defined by the private ownership of the means of production. corruption implies a system not working as intended. capitalism is intended to maximize profit, capitalism requires private ownership, resources are always limited, and rent requires private ownership. you might as well just say āprivate property + the limitations of a finite universe + private property + the incentives of private property is a problemā. iām kinda joking, but not really.
And I would definitely not go as far as saying that private property in general is bad, expecially not very limited private ownership like a person owning the house they live in or part of the company they work for. Too much concentration of ownership is a problem, not the concept of ownership itself.
this is a problem of terminology. generally when socialists or other lefties are talking about private property, theyāre talking about land and the economic abstractions of land ownership. socialist politics makes explicit distinctions between personal property and private property. i hear this argument alot, honestly, and if you find yourself making it as an argument against criticisms of private property more than once, iād just recommend learning a bit more about what socialists believe, because its kind of just talking past what we think the problem is, and how we propose to solve it (democratically, instead of at the whims of rich folks).
youāve talked about corporations a couple times, so i do wanna just say that those arenāt necessarily reasonable structures in and of themselves. it isnāt a given that the owners of a corporation should earn a profit, or that owning shares in a company is something beyond critique. there are more democratic organizational structures that donāt concentrate power towards those who have the most stuff.
hard disagree. we have to examine things as they exist in the real world, not as we would like them to be.
I donāt get why you keep trying to spin this as some sort of fairytail. Separating different things to figure out their role in an overall system is a completely normal and useful thing to do. If your car is broken you donāt just throw it on the scrap yard, or even declare cars in general non-functional. You look inside and figure out which part is the problem. And you can attribute the failure of the car to one part and declare the others functional, even if youād never see those parts driving alone on the highway (although I gave you examples of that for rent). This is not a matter of facts vs fiction, this is about keeping separate things separate and not mixing things up, correlation vs causation and stuff.
also disagree. why are these university students renting? schools could be providing housing to students if we invested public funds into that kind of project [ā¦]
Thatās not an argument against rent, thatās an argument against students having different means and having to pay for things in general. Why do students have to pay for food themselves? Why do they have to do their own house work when others can afford to hire someone? Those are all good questions, but they only concern rent in so far as itās also a thing people pay money for.
lets just go through this [ā¦]
There is so much wrong with this that I donāt even know where to begin.
Resources are not always limited, not in an economic sense. If there are more houses than people wanting to live in them then houses are essentially āunlimitedā, in the sense that youād probably need to pay someone to take it off your hands. Owning a house also has costs attached to it, and youād probably have a hard time covering those costs with earnings from rent in this case. People owning property in places no one wants to live in can attest to that.
Rent doesnāt require private ownership. Property can be owned and rented out by public entities, and thatās actually pretty common.
The rest is a gross oversimplyfication of the matter, as well as a logical error. You argue that X is in the equation, X requires private property, ergo private property is the problem. Thatās just wrong, or at least not compelling. As an example, burglars require air to live, but the problem of burglaries cannot simply be reduced to the existence of air.
And uhm ā¦ the universe is infinite as far as we know, but thatās another discussion entirely.
this is a problem of terminology
Ok, could be that we mean the same thing. I personally think that a certain level of private ownership is necessary in order to establish responsibilities and solve disputes. E.g. if I own my house then I get to decide what to do with it, but I also have to be the one to take care of it. That might be what youāre calling personal ownership, while Iād just say thatās private ownership within healthy limits.
Separating different things to figure out their role in an overall system is a completely normal and useful thing to do. [ā¦]
that isnāt my point. my point is that rent has always existed within unjust systems, and is itself a tool for those systems to accumulate wealth. if weāre taking gears out of a meatgrinder and trying to identify just how much that gear contributes to the problem of grinding people into meat, weāre missing the point. in practice, the system in which rent operates is built to deprive people of resources. but even then your framing is not agreeable to me. we arenāt talking about a machine, weāre talking about a complex socio-cultural phenomenon that developed organically over generational time spans. the idea that we could even rip the word ārentā out of the context it exists in and get anything worthwhile out of analyzing it like that is not reasonable to me. like, cultures and economies donāt have parts like an engine do, they have trends and policies and outcomes, and those things canāt reasonably be reduced to cogs in a machine.
Thatās not an argument against rent, thatās an argument against students having different means and having to pay for things in general. Why do students have to pay for food themselves? Why do they have to do their own house work when others can afford to hire someone? Those are all good questions, but they only concern rent in so far as itās also a thing people pay money for.
youāre doing the thing again. separating rent out from the system its built into and analyzing it only as the act of exchanging currency for housing itself. iām trying to engage in a systemic critique, not a stubbornly isolated look at a single piece of a larger whole. the problem of students āhaving different meansā is not the point. you have to look at the larger picture. on a population scale, how does the requirement to pay your resources into the pockets of wealthier people for basic housing affect a society?
rent is, in the case of the university student, a material obstacle towards getting an education. those who do not have money or home ownership are more likely to be denied an education as a result, and will have less access to money making opportunities in the future. the money they could have been saving for themselves goes into the pockets of richer (whiter) people, so they are less likely to be able to pass on money they make during their lifetime onto their kids. non-white people are much more likely to be renting than white people, and that is historically because non-white people were restricted from home ownership in the past, and were not able to build the kind of generational wealth that comes from home ownership. rental arrangements reinforce existing social stratifications by providing the means by which the wealthy (and white) can continue to extract resources from the poor (and brown), as they have done for generations past.
likeā¦ sharecropping was rent, and its sole purpose was to explicitly ensure that freed slaves continued to provide wealth to their former masters. the actual observable impacts of rent are to transfer wealth from people who have no resources to those with resources to spare.
[ā¦] If there are more houses than people wanting to live in them then houses are essentially āunlimitedā, in the sense that youād probably need to pay someone to take it off your hands. [ā¦]
i was being facetious. my point was more that these factors you seem to think are separable are interlinked. just as a wake up call, there are currently more houses than people wanting to live in them. there are many multiples of houses left unoccupied for each homeless person in the United States, and the price of housing hasnāt done the thing youāre saying it would. instead, homelessness is increasing as landlords continue to raise rent, and the prospect of owning a home is becoming more and more out of reach for more and more people.
Rent doesnāt require private ownership. Property can be owned and rented out by public entities, and thatās actually pretty common.
there is a rabbit hole i could go down about this, but i donāt really wanna. my position is relatively simple. housing is a human right. putting literally any barriers up that prevent people from getting a place to stay are wrong. imposing extra financial burdens onto the people who have the least money is wrong. rent is such a burden, even for public housing. nobody outside the people who live on the land should have ownership over the land, not wealthy folks, not the state. housing co-ops, self-governance, that is what we should strive for.
As an example, burglars require air to live, but the problem of burglaries cannot simply be reduced to the existence of air.
i donāt really know how to respond to this. air isnāt a socioeconomic phenomenon with a proven history of driving wealth inequality? it doesnāt interact with race and class in ways that structurally disadvantage people who are poor and brown?
And uhm ā¦ the universe is infinite as far as we know, but thatās another discussion entirely.
lol. disagree, but fine, ill be less hyperbolic. āthe parts of the universe we can build houses on currently are finite.ā is that better?
That might be what youāre calling personal ownership, while Iād just say thatās private ownership within healthy limits.
iām just gonna end with this: iām not prepared to expand upon the exact shape of why i think youāre wrong, and why i think your rebuttals fail to provide a compelling challenge to the ideas iām trying to convey. (that is not to say there arenāt compelling challenges to socialist ideas, there certainly are.) i used to hold a very similar position. the idea of doing away with private property once seemed ludicrous to me. then i actually engaged with socialist and anarchist arguments for why they believe the things they believe, and i found them compelling. iām not saying you will too, but i am saying that the reasons i believe these things are knowable and thereās plenty of media out there that explains it better than i ever could.
Ok so, if youāre not willing or able to separate different ideas and concepts, then this discussion makes little sense imo. Drowning a very specific question in your ideology is not the way to actually get a good and truthful answer.
Thanks anyway for your time and effort, have a good one!
Eh, canāt win em all. I will say, just as a parting thought, the things youāve been saying are also ideological. Believing clean separations between ideas and concepts are possible, appealing to existing systems as a way of validating the moral rightness of other systems, even believing that there is an objective āgood and truthful answerā is an ideological position. Iād say one of the more pernicious ideological positions a person can take is to believe they do not have an ideology. It makes it very difficult to think about or discuss why you believe the things you believe.
hard disagree. we have to examine things as they exist in the real world, not as we would like them to be. if we are only figuring out whether it would be good in principle, weāre failing to recognize whether that principle is actually founded on actual observable fact. and the observable facts say that rent has always been a potent tool for capitalists to extract wealth from people.
also disagree. why are these university students renting? schools could be providing housing to students if we invested public funds into that kind of project. what does the necessity of rent for students do in practice? well, the extra costs involved in having to rent space on the market in order to go to school structurally disadvantages marginalized students. students whose parents can cover the rent are able to maximize their time learning, take advantage of more extracurriculars, or save the money they make from a job for themselves, while students who canāt have to live in their cars, take jobs to cover costs, or just not get the education they want. the scale of the problem is smaller, but the nature of the problem is the same. those who have not must give their money to those who have in order to have a place to live.
lets just go through this. the supply of available property will always be limited. capitalism is defined by the private ownership of the means of production. corruption implies a system not working as intended. capitalism is intended to maximize profit, capitalism requires private ownership, resources are always limited, and rent requires private ownership. you might as well just say āprivate property + the limitations of a finite universe + private property + the incentives of private property is a problemā. iām kinda joking, but not really.
this is a problem of terminology. generally when socialists or other lefties are talking about private property, theyāre talking about land and the economic abstractions of land ownership. socialist politics makes explicit distinctions between personal property and private property. i hear this argument alot, honestly, and if you find yourself making it as an argument against criticisms of private property more than once, iād just recommend learning a bit more about what socialists believe, because its kind of just talking past what we think the problem is, and how we propose to solve it (democratically, instead of at the whims of rich folks).
youāve talked about corporations a couple times, so i do wanna just say that those arenāt necessarily reasonable structures in and of themselves. it isnāt a given that the owners of a corporation should earn a profit, or that owning shares in a company is something beyond critique. there are more democratic organizational structures that donāt concentrate power towards those who have the most stuff.
I donāt get why you keep trying to spin this as some sort of fairytail. Separating different things to figure out their role in an overall system is a completely normal and useful thing to do. If your car is broken you donāt just throw it on the scrap yard, or even declare cars in general non-functional. You look inside and figure out which part is the problem. And you can attribute the failure of the car to one part and declare the others functional, even if youād never see those parts driving alone on the highway (although I gave you examples of that for rent). This is not a matter of facts vs fiction, this is about keeping separate things separate and not mixing things up, correlation vs causation and stuff.
Thatās not an argument against rent, thatās an argument against students having different means and having to pay for things in general. Why do students have to pay for food themselves? Why do they have to do their own house work when others can afford to hire someone? Those are all good questions, but they only concern rent in so far as itās also a thing people pay money for.
There is so much wrong with this that I donāt even know where to begin.
Resources are not always limited, not in an economic sense. If there are more houses than people wanting to live in them then houses are essentially āunlimitedā, in the sense that youād probably need to pay someone to take it off your hands. Owning a house also has costs attached to it, and youād probably have a hard time covering those costs with earnings from rent in this case. People owning property in places no one wants to live in can attest to that.
Rent doesnāt require private ownership. Property can be owned and rented out by public entities, and thatās actually pretty common.
The rest is a gross oversimplyfication of the matter, as well as a logical error. You argue that X is in the equation, X requires private property, ergo private property is the problem. Thatās just wrong, or at least not compelling. As an example, burglars require air to live, but the problem of burglaries cannot simply be reduced to the existence of air.
And uhm ā¦ the universe is infinite as far as we know, but thatās another discussion entirely.
Ok, could be that we mean the same thing. I personally think that a certain level of private ownership is necessary in order to establish responsibilities and solve disputes. E.g. if I own my house then I get to decide what to do with it, but I also have to be the one to take care of it. That might be what youāre calling personal ownership, while Iād just say thatās private ownership within healthy limits.
that isnāt my point. my point is that rent has always existed within unjust systems, and is itself a tool for those systems to accumulate wealth. if weāre taking gears out of a meatgrinder and trying to identify just how much that gear contributes to the problem of grinding people into meat, weāre missing the point. in practice, the system in which rent operates is built to deprive people of resources. but even then your framing is not agreeable to me. we arenāt talking about a machine, weāre talking about a complex socio-cultural phenomenon that developed organically over generational time spans. the idea that we could even rip the word ārentā out of the context it exists in and get anything worthwhile out of analyzing it like that is not reasonable to me. like, cultures and economies donāt have parts like an engine do, they have trends and policies and outcomes, and those things canāt reasonably be reduced to cogs in a machine.
youāre doing the thing again. separating rent out from the system its built into and analyzing it only as the act of exchanging currency for housing itself. iām trying to engage in a systemic critique, not a stubbornly isolated look at a single piece of a larger whole. the problem of students āhaving different meansā is not the point. you have to look at the larger picture. on a population scale, how does the requirement to pay your resources into the pockets of wealthier people for basic housing affect a society?
rent is, in the case of the university student, a material obstacle towards getting an education. those who do not have money or home ownership are more likely to be denied an education as a result, and will have less access to money making opportunities in the future. the money they could have been saving for themselves goes into the pockets of richer (whiter) people, so they are less likely to be able to pass on money they make during their lifetime onto their kids. non-white people are much more likely to be renting than white people, and that is historically because non-white people were restricted from home ownership in the past, and were not able to build the kind of generational wealth that comes from home ownership. rental arrangements reinforce existing social stratifications by providing the means by which the wealthy (and white) can continue to extract resources from the poor (and brown), as they have done for generations past.
likeā¦ sharecropping was rent, and its sole purpose was to explicitly ensure that freed slaves continued to provide wealth to their former masters. the actual observable impacts of rent are to transfer wealth from people who have no resources to those with resources to spare.
i was being facetious. my point was more that these factors you seem to think are separable are interlinked. just as a wake up call, there are currently more houses than people wanting to live in them. there are many multiples of houses left unoccupied for each homeless person in the United States, and the price of housing hasnāt done the thing youāre saying it would. instead, homelessness is increasing as landlords continue to raise rent, and the prospect of owning a home is becoming more and more out of reach for more and more people.
there is a rabbit hole i could go down about this, but i donāt really wanna. my position is relatively simple. housing is a human right. putting literally any barriers up that prevent people from getting a place to stay are wrong. imposing extra financial burdens onto the people who have the least money is wrong. rent is such a burden, even for public housing. nobody outside the people who live on the land should have ownership over the land, not wealthy folks, not the state. housing co-ops, self-governance, that is what we should strive for.
i donāt really know how to respond to this. air isnāt a socioeconomic phenomenon with a proven history of driving wealth inequality? it doesnāt interact with race and class in ways that structurally disadvantage people who are poor and brown?
lol. disagree, but fine, ill be less hyperbolic. āthe parts of the universe we can build houses on currently are finite.ā is that better?
iām just gonna end with this: iām not prepared to expand upon the exact shape of why i think youāre wrong, and why i think your rebuttals fail to provide a compelling challenge to the ideas iām trying to convey. (that is not to say there arenāt compelling challenges to socialist ideas, there certainly are.) i used to hold a very similar position. the idea of doing away with private property once seemed ludicrous to me. then i actually engaged with socialist and anarchist arguments for why they believe the things they believe, and i found them compelling. iām not saying you will too, but i am saying that the reasons i believe these things are knowable and thereās plenty of media out there that explains it better than i ever could.
Ok so, if youāre not willing or able to separate different ideas and concepts, then this discussion makes little sense imo. Drowning a very specific question in your ideology is not the way to actually get a good and truthful answer.
Thanks anyway for your time and effort, have a good one!
Eh, canāt win em all. I will say, just as a parting thought, the things youāve been saying are also ideological. Believing clean separations between ideas and concepts are possible, appealing to existing systems as a way of validating the moral rightness of other systems, even believing that there is an objective āgood and truthful answerā is an ideological position. Iād say one of the more pernicious ideological positions a person can take is to believe they do not have an ideology. It makes it very difficult to think about or discuss why you believe the things you believe.