• irmoz@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Abolish landlording completely

    Or, in legal terms, “an entity may not own a home if they cannot demonstrate that they occupy the residence for more than 10 months a year”

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re assuming that this would magically drop all property prices to be affordable by all people, which is not at all self-evident.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Respectfully, I think that’s a safer assumption than the UK nationalizing the housing market, but by all means, feel free to wait for that if you like.

          But even to play along, even if you could snap your fingers and abolish the housing market, the question of allocation doesn’t go away. You’ll still have certain units that are extremely desirable and valuable, others that are quite good, some that are fine, and some that are terrible. In other words, even in the absence of the market, inherent value will still drastically differ from unit to unit and location to location. So, if you’re not using money to allocate things, how do you do it? What do you do if demand outstrips supply?

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            A democratic institution run by the people.

            Oh, did I not mention this would take place after a revolution by the people, overthrowing the bourgeois state establishment?

            I do not trust Rishi to oversee this, or Keith.

            • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Okay, let’s explore this. Everyone votes for themselves to live in London’s best penthouse. Crafty clever me, expecting this situation, bribe a few of my friends to vote for me to live in the penthouse instead. Perhaps I slip them some money under the table - or if we’ve abolished money - I promise to do some amount of work for them, give them something valuable I have, promise to cook for them, whatever. So, I’ve got the penthouse. Yay democracy?

              Or, to expand more, lots of people recognize this strategy, so everyone with some degree of wealth starts buying votes anywhere they can get them. Ultimately, the people with the most wealth wind up getting the best housing as loads of goods and favors get exchanged. At this point, oops, you have a market again.

              Now, you might just say that it should be randomized. But in that case, if I get assigned a shitty unit, perhaps I might just go to someone who got a nice unit and offer them an exchange of some kind. Perhaps I don’t have any valuable goods, but I’m a talented painter and offer to paint them several nice pieces. Ultimately, they find it to be an acceptable deal and agree to swap apartments. Lots and lots of people would be doing the same thing, and as the government wouldn’t actually be able to monitory everyone’s location all the time to ensure they’re living where they’re supposed to be, once again, you have a market.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That’s a severe lack of imagination concerning democracy, man. It isn’t just voting for which house you want. It’s coming to an agreement about how houses are distributed.

                • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Hey, I’m wide open here. Please, share your ideas. By what process is this agreement reached? Given a scarcity of nice apartments, who gets them, and how is that decided? Genuinely, I’m curious as to what kind of system you’re imagining, particularly given that, by definition, it has to make most people content, and given a scarce resource, most people won’t get what they want, so some other criteria has to decide who gets what.

                  • irmoz@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Sorry, I ought to resist the urge to reply when I don’t have time to type much.

                    You also need to consider that housing isn’t just some static thing, especially in anything resembling socialism. There will also be much work from people in renovating existing housing and building new houses. I would imagine mansions being divided into apartments, slums being rebuilt or fixed into decent homes, and this level of connection to each others, and to the labour of building a better world, will also influence how people decide who gets what and who lives where.

                    In the democratic process, we start with the general agreement that everyone deserves somewhere to live. From there, we get more and more specific, but never so specific as to say “this person deserves this house”. For example, families need space for each member of the family. Individuals need less space, but there is room to argue you may need space for working if you’re a craftsperson. Standards and precedents.

                    Also consider that this is transitional and temporary. This is how to get from marketised housing, toward communal housing. This initial phase wouldn’t describe moving forward from there. Once these general rules are in place, they won’t be static. Once everyone is housed, the priority is no longer getting everyone housed, but making living easier, including continuing the work of raising the standard of living, renovating homes, moving people into nicer homes, and so on. This will settle into a comfortable standard for everyone, and can build from there.

    • Big P
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think landlords as a concept are a completely bad idea