Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

dogsoahC

@dogsoahC@lemm.ee

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

dogsoahC ,

What the fuck are you smoking?

dogsoahC ,

Why not both? Get reforms done now to get some immediate alleviation and garner more popular support, and prepare for a revolution asap.

dogsoahC ,

You can't be a good anything and be a landlord. At least if we use the moral meaning of "good".

dogsoahC ,

That's an odd spelling of "capitalist".

dogsoahC ,

Okay, but why do we need the landlord then? We'd just need a custodian.

dogsoahC ,

I'm not completely against the concept of renting. But imo the property should be owned either by the inhabitant of it, or the state. And then the state employs a custodian in charge of repairs and administration (you know, the only useful aspects of a landlord), while renting it out for a low price. And in order to keep prices a s low as possible, maintenance is supplemented by a tax.

The problem with private landlords of one or two extra properties, while they're often not morally bankrupt, is that they tend to be wholly inept at the custodian part. Plus, if properties are all owned in small numbers rather than organized on the large scale, that's just very inefficient.

dogsoahC ,

You could still have different prices, albeit lower ones. Renting then becomes part of a resources allocation game. If you want a bigger/more luxurious home, you pay more and have less for other things. If a fancy house isn't so important to you, you can get a cheaper one and have more money left for vacations, fine dining, cinema, etc.

As for the efficiency, that government department could take lessons from big property owners and organize like them, only with state subsidies and without profit goals. That way, the middle class, by virtue of having more money, could still afford better housing. Also, I don't want the middle class to live like the working class, I want the working class to live like the middle class. Also also, there's no "middle class", only parts of the working class that got lucky. But they're fundamentally still beholden to their employers' whims.

Incremental change withing the current system is good and important, but we nonetheless have to discuss the big break that has to occur at some point, and what comes after. Incremental change can only take us so far.

dogsoahC ,

I'm an optimist. I hope that in fourty years, the revolution will already have been won and grandma doesn't need to vandalize banks any longer.

dogsoahC ,

Shutting down my computer with the button, restarting, and installing Emacs.

dogsoahC ,

Nah, we just need more people with sticks.

dogsoahC OP ,

Oh. OH! Looks like I'm a bit out of practicing in memecrafting. xD

dogsoahC ,

...and it allows both of them to get evicted if they don't have money, need money if they don't have money, and starve if they don't have money.

"Majestic equality" because the ruling class are more equal.

dogsoahC ,

I'd debate the free will part.

dogsoahC ,

Well, first of all, determinism precludes any notion of free will. Second, even if we allow random chance, free will is still an incoherent idea. Behavior is either caused by certain factors, in which case it is deterministic, or it is at least in part random, in which case it is just that - random. There's just no conceptual mechanism - that I am aware of - that allows for free will to be anything more than an illusion.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •