Capitalism is praised as a motivator for people to contribute to society with the promise of fiscal returns. Landlords make zero contribution, while attaining huge returns.
Abolishing landlords would accomplish one of Marx's most significant goals without completely throwing out property rights and capitalism.
> How would that one work?
Well, like any implementation, that's up for discussion. The general idea is that we would remove the ability for landlords to charge rent. Landlords would have an explicit infringement on their property rights. They would no longer have the right to demand recurring payment from occupants of their properties. They would have restrictions of their ability to evict tenants.
Of course, the implementation is where this idea gets contentious. Are landlords allowed to evict tenants who destroy property? Do landlords even own property anymore, or is it explicitly given to tenants? What about multi-dwelling properties? Who owns the furnace in an apartment complex? Do we create a third-party authority? Can any of this be accomplished without full-fledged Communism?
Most of the complications lie in the change from status quo. It's pretty complicated to decide who owns property that is already owned by landlords, but it's pretty straightforward to make it illegal to enter new rental contracts.
I agree that simply throwing out the words "abolish landlords" trivializes a lot, but it's still an idea worth exploring. What we have now isn't inherently better. It's a pretty obvious failing. People are homeless while homes lie vacant. People are inheriting huge swaths of property, making wealth and power, then turning that power toward policy that benefits them. These are real problems, and they deserve attention.
You're saying that residential property gets a special restriction on how people who own something are able to use it or enter into agreements on how they can charge others for the use of it?
Who occupies a house then? Only the owner?
I get that this proposal is a significant change from the status quo. That's the point. The status quo has some glaring issues. I understand it's difficult to take proposals for big changes seriously, but does that mean we should not take the problems of our current system seriously?
> You're saying that residential property gets a special restriction on how people who own something are able to use it or enter into agreements on how they can charge others for the use of it?
Yes. Specifically, no one can enter an agreement where housing can be rented. The core idea is that housing can be owned and sold, just that it can't be rented. There can be some discussion as to whether short term contracts like hotels could be allowed, but they would have to be regulated to prevent abuse.
The only question left is what to do about extant rental contracts.
> Who occupies a house then? Only the owner?
The owner or a guest. That's how housing works outside renting.
If you can't charge rent on property, then you are incentivized to sell it, thereby flooding the home ownership market and lowering the cost of housing.
This is a concept that has been discussed at length elsewhere. I encourage you not to use me as your only source of education.
I really think you need to think about unintended consequences. Not even unintended -- like, kindergarten 0th order effects.
> I really think you need to think about unintended consequences. Not even unintended -- like, kindergarten 0th order effects.
Like I said, this is a serious idea that has existed for decades, not some trivial thing I pulled out of my ass. Just because it doesn't instantly appeal to you does not mean it is worthless.
I'm not going to sit here and step you through every consideration made on this topic. If you are honestly interested, you can go read about it yourself.
Frankly, your decision to talk down to me like I'm some kind of thoughtless child merely stifles the conversation for both parties. Kindly get off your high horse.
Let me guess, on some of the other discussions on HN you would be of the position that people should have the right to repair their mobile phones themselves, control what software runs on their computers, etc. etc? And yet, you would propose interfering with people's most fundamental desire to control and do what they want with the house they own?
Someday, I'm sure you'll realize that it's more productive to work within and guide basic human nature, than to try to put rules down that everyone wants to break.
In other words, if you appear to be talking down to me, it is because you are. I got that.
> Fundamentally upending a system that has brought prosperity to generations of people because it has become marginally harder for some today -- that's mature and responsible? Everyone should just share?
"Fundamentally upending" is your categorization, not mine. What you call, "brought prosperity to generations of people" is what I call, "concentrated wealth into the hands of a tiny tiny fraction of society". That's not a thing I am proud of. I don't call the system that made that happen "mature" or "responsible". The reality of those people "not sharing" has devastating effects for millions of others. Four hundred men's "prosperity" is literally millions' poverty.
> Let me guess, on some of the other discussions on HN you would be of the position that people should have the right to repair their mobile phones themselves, control what software runs on their computers, etc. etc? And yet, you would propose interfering with people's most fundamental desire to control and do what they want with the house they own?
Yes. Abolishing rental contracts for housing in no way conflicts with those other things. In fact, abolishing rental housing contracts would put more people in a position to do what they want with the house they live in.
You see, people predominately do not rent their computers. People in general don't pay half of their income for permission to rent someone else's computer because they can't afford to buy their own. If they did, they would fundamentally not be able to access the right to repair that computer or arbitrarily run whatever software they want on it.
Can your ideologue brain handle it, or does it break too many rules?
Someday you might learn that your current perspective isn't the ultimate best way of thinking ever. Or you won't. The latter is looking more likely at the moment.
These two failed though at producing other goods, like food, due to various kinds of mismanagement. Not at housing people or providing employment. Or at basic to middle school education. (Only at higher it did ultimately fail due to anti-intellectualist streak.)
> Oh, are we meant to be afraid of these solutions?
Not afraid, but how about we spend a non-zero amount of brain power seeing if that is good or not rather than painting opponents as cowardly?
Is asking to think too much to ask?
Well, that's pretty intense. But as a thought experiment, I suppose we can go all the way down this slippery slope.
> Lets start with you.
Well no, that's not how it works. We start with literally everyone at the same time. That's what Communism means. The fact that you need to change it to make it look unappealing is telling.
Granted, I'm not advocating communism here. I'm just pointing out that landlords are an obvious edge case. Landlords provide no benefit, while reaping a huge reward, especially when you factor in generational wealth.
> Not afraid, but how about we spend a non-zero amount of brain power seeing if that is good or not rather than painting opponents as cowardly?
That's what I'm trying to do here. The comment I was replying to insinuated that we should spend a zero amount of brain power considering Socialist policy.
> Is asking to think too much to ask?
In addition, property purchase is legally complex, time-consuming, and risky. If you cannot find someone to purchase the home that you purchased, you can't really get rid of it. Renting thus provides optionality - the choice to walk away. The landlord takes on the risk of not being able to find a renter and having to cover the mortgage and property tax costs for a space they're not using. If you think that'll never happen, take a look at Detroit.
This is not to say that landlords are perfect, or that having them is better than the costs of them. But when you are going around making, in my opinion overly simplistic arguments, you weaken the strength of the underlying case. It makes it hard to take other things you say seriously.
Oh, are we meant to be afraid of these solutions?