You can't be a good anything and be a landlord. At least if we use the moral meaning of "good".
You could only ask for as much rent as you need to cover the expenses for whatever you're renting out.
Okay, but why do we need the landlord then? We'd just need a custodian.
I mean... yeah, pretty much. I don't want to deal with maintenance or the legal stuff, so I'd be willing to pay someone to deal with all of that. Not the outrageous rates that rent usually goes for, typically.
Because you can't afford to buy a property? So you need someone else to do it for you and then pay them a service fee for living in their property.
There's a lot of smaller victories to win before we can have the big victory of outlawing landlords, so we should fight those first imo.
I am not a landlord. Yet.
When i do buy a 2nd property I do intend to rent it out at a reasonable price - and I have no guilt over doing so because all of our country's private property is being bought up by foreign "investors" driving up the cost of ownership and rents while leaving properties unoccupied. It's disgusting and I'll fight it directly when I can afford to.
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.
That does sound like it would be of benefit but I'm not sure how realistic it is to set up a system like this and it work for everyone - would the government just start buying property off people? Would that crash or balloon the market? How do you ensure that families aren't priced out of moving home either by higher property prices (from the government buying up everything) or from a catastrophic crash caused by no one wanting to buy property as investments?
Also how would the government provide attractive housing options across the economic spectrum across the whole of the country? Sounds like a monstrously large government department would need to be formed, which amongst other things would be very inefficient and goes against the objectives of the government. Take for example state health care- there is only one tier of care, and if you want anything better you pay for it privately. If we had the same for housing but didn't have the private option then in all liklihood the government would be thrown out and the next one would be the one who promises private housing. Because like it or not, the middle class doesn't want to live like the working class.
As I said, there a lot of battles to win and I think this anti-landlord stuff is just short sighted because there is no realistic solution that could be implemented today even if a country was willing - which it isn't. Instead we should focus on fighting the smaller fights that would lead us towards the utopia: rent control, taxation, foreign "investors", empty dwellings, single-family properties etc....all of these things could be vastly improved today for the benefit of everyone except those leaching on society.
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.
The issue with that is that you're still making money on a human right. That property is gonna gain value and eventually you'll be able to sell it for more than you bought it for, all on the back of the tenants. Unless you're planning to give the tenants the house when they pay the value of it but at that point there's no reason for you the own it to begin with.
I'm confused. Are you saying people shouldn't have to pay for housing? For food? For electricity?
They're providing/enabling the human right. Why do you describe it as if they were making money off of necessity without trade and giving?
I'm saying landlords are parasites and there's no way to excuse what they do as a good thing or necessary.
Yes. I would say people shouldn't have to pay for the basic necessities required to live. Why should anyone live with the threat of homelessness and starvation?
Because it takes time and resources and create and maintain housing... who will pay for it, and why is it the landlord's fault instead of whoever isn't taking that responsibility (government???).
That's a good goal, but leaves open how it can be implemented.
"they're providing/enabling..."
WOAH there, pardner.
They don't PROVIDE anything.
They hoard a finite resource for financial gain. Full stop.
Is every landlord the same? Are they all big companies out for profit? Or what?
They do though? They provide a place to live that you can move into way faster than you can if you were buying it. They cover the maintenance costs, and some even provide properties that are fully furnished.
I agree that they hoard properties for financial gain but they do provide something.
They’re providing/enabling the human right.
You are literally saying that your human rights should be privately owned by somebody else. If that's the case, why even bother with human rights?
You gotta separate the concept of a right from fulfilling them.
You can have a human right. But that alone does not answer how it is fulfilled.
The right is not owned. It can't be.
You gotta separate the concept of a right from fulfilling them.
Says who?
If a human right only exists on paper it's not a right - it's a buzzterm for political racketeers to throw around. Fulfilling a "bill of rights" is the core part of the (so-called) "social contract" between the liberal state and it's subjects - if it's merely "fulfilling" those by pretending they exist, the existence of the liberal state - and liberalism itself - becomes irrelevant and unjustifiable to the subjects.
If a human right only exists on paper it’s not a right
A right is a right. It doesn't just disappear.
Fantasizing about rights doesn't make them real - or even relevant.
Yes.
My landlord didn't pay for nor make the land my place is on. Nor the place I reside on. Yet he jacks up the rent every march as soon as he can, as much as he legally can.
My landlord doesn't clean the lots, doesn't clean the public bathrooms, doesn't do anything but come on by to complain about the lots he doesn't improve.
How he is providing anything but less money in my family's bank account, and an headache to everyone he complains to?
I think you could be a good Dalek and a landlord
You can’t be a good anything and be a landlord
A good parasite?
That's an odd spelling of "capitalist".
I thought that was the normal spelling of “capitalist.” 😉
TheyreTheSamePicture.jpg
If people actually followed the teachings of Jesus, it would be a very difficult world. Christianity is supposed to be socialist as fuck.
Landlording is fine by christian teachings but making a profit and getting rich by it is a bit iffy
It wouldn't be difficult at all. In fact it would be a true utopia.
Problem is gods aren't real and human instincts prefer selfishness and tribalism over "socialist" ideas.
Humans love the idea of socialism until it comes down to "us vs them" then socialism is the greatest threat there is.
That's not true. You'd have to gauge your eyes out for lusting after a woman. And women? They aren't allowed to reject their husband's sexual advances. Which doesn't sound extreme until it turns out hes got a scat fetish.
Hyperbole is a rhetorical device.
Accept its existence or die.
The first part of your argument kinda supports mine.
Jesus said if you can't quit staring at, or keep your fuckin hands off women, cause you're so pathetic about attractive women, gouge your eyes out and cut off your hands. Cause you're the problem.
As for the second part was that something Jesus himself preached? Or is that more of that Paul dudes bullshit?
I don't care who wrote that down. None of it was written by jezus anyway.
I had a good landlord, so they’re definitely out there. Mine didn’t raise my rent more than $50 in a decade of living there, and was pretty great and quick about repairs. I am sorry others have had the experience they’ve had, and I think it’s more to do with private equity buying real estate, or some kind of landlord with 10+ units etc. I think the mom/pop landlord with the odd house they rent out when their family isn’t using it are pretty chill. I am sure there are examples to prove me wrong though
You're right, there are good examples out there. The point is they're statistical anomalies not the rule. Landlords by and large serve very little societal purpose.
if they don't serve a purpose, then where are we supposed to live when we're only staying in a place for a few months or years?
Or what if I'm trying to save up money to buy a house? Am I just supposed to live in a hotel, or on the street?
If only there was an option somewhere between a hotel and buying a house... 🤔
When a house is an investment that grows in value society attempts to maximize scarcity, fewer houses or higher demand means more growth in their value. But imagine we lived in a society where we had more houses than we need, a surplus, because we valued housing people whenever they needed housing and we knew roughly how many houses we needed to do that.
You could move anywhere and find a house to own at a cost you could afford. Imagine housing wasn't a massive store of value such that multiple bureaucratic steps were created to nickle and dime the transaction. Buying a home could be easy.
You could find a vacant house or one that has leaving owners, inspection papers were regulated and up to date, you could buy it off of them using your money or a loan from the government, and you could move in just like if you were renting.
You don't have to save up for money to buy a home in a society where housing people is a priority. Housing would be cheaper, cost of living would be lower, purchasing power would be higher, and we could have methods in place for transitioning ownership without requiring a lump sum of cash cause no one's expecting a massive windfall immediately. Ya know, loans.
Living on the street would be a fictional concept, encouraging homelessness is a societal choice - we could house everyone on the streets within the year if we wanted to. Does that mean long term hotels wouldn't exist? No. That's an actual service being provided.
I'm just saying, if landlords served a purpose we could enable that service as a society but if housing wasn't an investment vehicle it's pretty clear the number of landlords would plummet over night and we'd quickly realize relatively few people liked the "service" they were receiving.
you sound exactly like every capitalist. There's infinite resources! We don't live in 3 dimensional space!
jeezus, you're somewhere between insane and delusional.
also, lol at how you have no idea how loans work.
Well I wouldn't describe myself as a capitalist per se. I don't believe there's infinite resources but I do believe there are better, more efficient ways of distributing them - especially with housing. We definitely live in 3d space, I don't really know what this comment is referring to or it's use.
Probably a bit of both, insane and delusional, but I also think imagining a better solution requires a smidge of both.
Again, your loan comment doesn't make much sense to me because you failed to contributing a meaningful comment - you could elaborate but I suspect you don't believe government financing is a thing? Or that interest rates can be zero? I'm not really sure, but I can elaborate my original concept - because I'm not an Internet troll and I genuinely want people to imagine and work towards a better future.
Houses are expensive products, we can agree on that, even if they weren't investment vehicles it takes a team of people months to construct a good house and a lot longer for an apartment or larger complex. Since everyone should be able to own their home, pretending for second we went so far as to abolish the concept of renting, we would need people to be able to afford housing immediately upon becoming an adult and choosing to live somewhere else. Normally we think of this as rent, we pay someone else's mortgage with our money because we didn't have the capital to purchase it directly in the past. I. My proposed future, there'd be no landlords to pay mortgages for, so we'd take out our own mortgage to pay for our housing.
Now I think this is where people imagine today's mortgages and systems being imposed on an 18 year old and think that's foolish. That's why i clarify housing as a product instead of an investment vehicle is cheaper, and housing as a right or a goal of society means mortgages aren't for profit. So someone buys a home that costs less than todays home using a loan who's interest is less than todays interest - likely the first from the previous owner, construction company, or the government and the second from some level of government.
It's how loans work but instead of for profit they're for the betterment of society. We do this all the time for various reasons today. The PPP loans being forgiven is one example, so is 0% student loans, and if the government wanted to charge 1-2% interest for a good reason we have historical precedent to that as well. Idk what about this is so hard to understand for you but hopefully this helps. :p
tl;dr
if they don’t serve a purpose, then where are we supposed to live when we’re only staying in a place for a few months or years?
A non-market housing unit. Basically, a non-profit org that only charges the actual cost of the housing & maintenance.
Christianity was invented by landlords, maybe not the Christ parts specifically but the rest for sure
Ianity was invented by landlords
People think the oxymoron is between 'Good Christian' and 'Landlord'.
When it is in fact between 'Good' and 'Christian'.
This is ridiculous. There are a lot of sanctimonious fundamentalists in the world, and there are a lot of genuinely good people who identify as Christian. Some of the best people I know are Christians. They're not inherently hateful bigots, in fact I'd wager those are a loud minority.
There are good people who are Christian, sure. But they're only good people because they are bad Christians. They (their denomination) have cherry picked the least contentious passages and ignored the most hateful.
A 'Good Christian' is a creature of bigotry and contradiction, who spares no bias for which passages are morally good or bad. In some sense, The Westborough Baptist Church embrace many of the worst aspects of Christianity, they are Good Christians (but bad people).
This is nonsense. The bad people who call themselves Christians are the ones cherry picking bigotry. The Christian message is, fundamentally, "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:30-31). There are a lot of hateful bigots who put a cross on the building, and those are the loud minority. A good Christian is one who prays quietly alone at home, not shoving their religion in other people's faces (Matthew 5:6).
Westboro Baptists are bad Christians, as are any others who spew hate and intolerance against others.
1 Timothy 2:12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
It's Christianity - not Timothanity.
Okay. When I say "Christian" I'm referring to followers of the teachings of Jesus. Lots of people have a lot of commentary about a lot of things. One of those people was Paul, who wasn't a disciple and never met Jesus. Timothy is, purportedly, Paul's correspondence with some guy named Timothy. There are many who feel that Paul seriously corrupted the original Christian message.
Forgive me if I don't consider the Pauline epistles to be representative of the core Christian message.
Lol here we go with the moving of goal posts.
Pack it up guys, our work here is done.
The Christian message is not fundamentally anything you can fit onto a post it note.
If you were to take everything the bible condones/encourages, you would get a list of some good stuff, and some bad stuff.
The problem is, the bad stuff is really, really bad.
The Bible is the Torah + the Gospels of Jesus + a ton of editorialized commentary, filtered through multiple stages of politicized selection. Yes, the fundamentals fit on a post it: love God with all your heart, love your neighbor as yourself. All the rest is parables and commentary, some by Jesus, some by less gregarious personages.
Some modern "Christians" obsess over the less gregarious commentaries (e.g. Paul), some obsess over twisted interpretations of these already twisted commentaries. Such is history.
But the message is the golden rule: love thy neighbor as thyself. All the rest is parables to illustrate variations on that theme. The bad stuff was added later, and it's the same exact bad stuff that creeps into any emergent structure. Shitty people will gravitate to The Current Popular Thing to peddle their shitty ideologies, especially if they can creep in under the premise of divine sanction.
You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe that centuries-later editorialization by opportunistic shit-heads is representative of the core ideologies of an older movement.
What a load of shit lol.
Let's keep arguing, you're getting real close to convincing me your religion isn't a load of dog shit splashed over a fat girls cunt.
You said you blame capitalism for problems, I assume you like Communism/Socialism?
Stalin co-opted Communism, that means Communism supports authoritarianism right? National Socialists are obviously Socialists since they took the name and published a lot of stuff right? That means Good Communists support Siberian prison work camps and Good Socialists support the Holocaust, right? Any Communist or Socialist who acts like a decent human being in spite of the evils done in the name of a twisted simulacrum of Communism or Socialism is a Bad Communist/Socialist, right?
Otherwise, you'd have to acknowledge that sometimes, over the course of a movement, bad actors try to co-opt the name of that movement for their own corrupt personal gain, and that sometimes if those bad actors have secured significant political influence they can manufacture consensus on the "official" beliefs of that movement through "official" publications.
So choose: is Hitler a Good Socialist, or is Paul a Bad Christian?
I'm sure we can both agree that Hitler wasn't a socialist.
The difference here is that you presuppose people are poorly interpreting the bible when they choose one contradiction over another.
There is no interpretation of communism where the current state of China is permitted.
The bible CLEARLY endorses/encourages/condones MANY fucked up stances and never corrects for them.
Paul is a good Christian, since what he says is in the bible.
There's no difference, you're just a hypocrite. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: either a message is corruptible, or it isn't. Either the total corpus of Christianity/Communism is canon, or it isn't. Either the evils enshrined in later "Communist" literature is sacrosanct, or the evils enshrined in later "Christian" literature is suspect. "The Bible" is a political corruption of Christianity no less than modern China is a political corruption of Communism. If the Bible denotes the definitive Christianity, then Mao denotes the definitive Marxism.
To claim otherwise it's hypocritical double-speak. Are you a hypocrite, or do you acknowledge the Bible might be a slightly more politically compromised document than you've heretofore claimed?
You're a hypocrite.
There are no inconsistencies in the communist manifesto as far as I'm aware. It certainly doesn't endorse totalitarian dictatorships or genocide (though the bible does, multiple times).
Yet, your bible details rules for slaves and never corrects itself. The bible endorses and encourages slavery. You just choose to ignore it.
I'm not a hypocrite.
The Bible is a particular selection of disparate writings collected over centuries and codified millennia after the events described.
By like comparison, Communism as a corpus is composed of the exploits of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
The gospels of Christianity are more similar to the Manifesto itself, and contain none of the dictatorships or genocides to which you allude. The gospels do not encourage slavery. If you judge the Bible based on the commentaries and political corruptions, then so judge Communism by gulags and genocides. If one is corruption, then both are. If one is canon, then both are. If you judge Christianity by Paul, judge Communism by Mao. Mao published. Paul published. If it's unfair to judge Communism by Mao, it's unfair to judge Christianity by Paul.
But they’re only good people because they are bad Christians.
Oh look... an edgelord atheist still obsessed with blaming religion for everything.
Yawn.
Hey, I also blame capitalism for everything, don't sell me short.
You have a fundamentally flawed viewpoint that all Christian denominations take equally and at its core believe 100% the Bible in every word no exception.
You can’t blame innocent Christians at the local church who fly rainbow flags and BLM flags for some dictator committing genocide elsewhere with a biblical justification. There’s a huge spectrum there just like anything else. Yeah a good majority is trash and lots of the people are trash, but by instantly assuming that a Christian is a bad person or that they are a good person but bad at their religion makes you trash.
L
You're missing the point. These Christians who are flying rainbow flags and marching in BLM protests are good people.
They are however, not good Christians. The bible outright says gays will go to hell. If you want to read some external shit into it to make you feel like your book doesn't say you're siding with abominations, go ahead.
It's not the people, it's indoctrination. They're just as much of a victim as anyone else.
I'm keenly aware of that as I have recovered from religion.
The fact remains that being a Christian is at odds with being a good person. Bigotry is baked in to Christianity. If you want to cherry pick the good parts, that's great, but it doesn't erase the suffering which is still being perpetrated due to the explicit wording in the bible.
There are warlords in Africa who justify enslavement because the bibles explicitly permits it, and never makes any effort to clarify that slavery should no longer be permitted.
You would think that at some point, God would want to convey to everyone that slavery was a symptom of the times, thousands of years ago, and is no longer permitted as of the New Testament, but that never happens.
Replace Christian with person
You can't be a good anything and be a landlord. At least if we use the moral meaning of "good".
You could only ask for as much rent as you need to cover the expenses for whatever you're renting out.
Okay, but why do we need the landlord then? We'd just need a custodian.
I mean... yeah, pretty much. I don't want to deal with maintenance or the legal stuff, so I'd be willing to pay someone to deal with all of that. Not the outrageous rates that rent usually goes for, typically.
Because you can't afford to buy a property? So you need someone else to do it for you and then pay them a service fee for living in their property.
There's a lot of smaller victories to win before we can have the big victory of outlawing landlords, so we should fight those first imo.
I am not a landlord. Yet.
When i do buy a 2nd property I do intend to rent it out at a reasonable price - and I have no guilt over doing so because all of our country's private property is being bought up by foreign "investors" driving up the cost of ownership and rents while leaving properties unoccupied. It's disgusting and I'll fight it directly when I can afford to.
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.
That does sound like it would be of benefit but I'm not sure how realistic it is to set up a system like this and it work for everyone - would the government just start buying property off people? Would that crash or balloon the market? How do you ensure that families aren't priced out of moving home either by higher property prices (from the government buying up everything) or from a catastrophic crash caused by no one wanting to buy property as investments?
Also how would the government provide attractive housing options across the economic spectrum across the whole of the country? Sounds like a monstrously large government department would need to be formed, which amongst other things would be very inefficient and goes against the objectives of the government. Take for example state health care- there is only one tier of care, and if you want anything better you pay for it privately. If we had the same for housing but didn't have the private option then in all liklihood the government would be thrown out and the next one would be the one who promises private housing. Because like it or not, the middle class doesn't want to live like the working class.
As I said, there a lot of battles to win and I think this anti-landlord stuff is just short sighted because there is no realistic solution that could be implemented today even if a country was willing - which it isn't. Instead we should focus on fighting the smaller fights that would lead us towards the utopia: rent control, taxation, foreign "investors", empty dwellings, single-family properties etc....all of these things could be vastly improved today for the benefit of everyone except those leaching on society.
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.
The issue with that is that you're still making money on a human right. That property is gonna gain value and eventually you'll be able to sell it for more than you bought it for, all on the back of the tenants. Unless you're planning to give the tenants the house when they pay the value of it but at that point there's no reason for you the own it to begin with.
I'm confused. Are you saying people shouldn't have to pay for housing? For food? For electricity?
They're providing/enabling the human right. Why do you describe it as if they were making money off of necessity without trade and giving?
I'm saying landlords are parasites and there's no way to excuse what they do as a good thing or necessary.
Yes. I would say people shouldn't have to pay for the basic necessities required to live. Why should anyone live with the threat of homelessness and starvation?
Because it takes time and resources and create and maintain housing... who will pay for it, and why is it the landlord's fault instead of whoever isn't taking that responsibility (government???).
That's a good goal, but leaves open how it can be implemented.
"they're providing/enabling..."
WOAH there, pardner.
They don't PROVIDE anything.
They hoard a finite resource for financial gain. Full stop.
Is every landlord the same? Are they all big companies out for profit? Or what?
They do though? They provide a place to live that you can move into way faster than you can if you were buying it. They cover the maintenance costs, and some even provide properties that are fully furnished.
I agree that they hoard properties for financial gain but they do provide something.
You are literally saying that your human rights should be privately owned by somebody else. If that's the case, why even bother with human rights?
You gotta separate the concept of a right from fulfilling them.
You can have a human right. But that alone does not answer how it is fulfilled.
The right is not owned. It can't be.
Says who?
If a human right only exists on paper it's not a right - it's a buzzterm for political racketeers to throw around. Fulfilling a "bill of rights" is the core part of the (so-called) "social contract" between the liberal state and it's subjects - if it's merely "fulfilling" those by pretending they exist, the existence of the liberal state - and liberalism itself - becomes irrelevant and unjustifiable to the subjects.
A right is a right. It doesn't just disappear.
Fantasizing about rights doesn't make them real - or even relevant.
Yes.
My landlord didn't pay for nor make the land my place is on. Nor the place I reside on. Yet he jacks up the rent every march as soon as he can, as much as he legally can.
My landlord doesn't clean the lots, doesn't clean the public bathrooms, doesn't do anything but come on by to complain about the lots he doesn't improve.
How he is providing anything but less money in my family's bank account, and an headache to everyone he complains to?
I think you could be a good Dalek and a landlord
A good parasite?
That's an odd spelling of "capitalist".
I thought that was the normal spelling of “capitalist.” 😉
TheyreTheSamePicture.jpg
If people actually followed the teachings of Jesus, it would be a very difficult world. Christianity is supposed to be socialist as fuck.
Landlording is fine by christian teachings but making a profit and getting rich by it is a bit iffy
It wouldn't be difficult at all. In fact it would be a true utopia.
Problem is gods aren't real and human instincts prefer selfishness and tribalism over "socialist" ideas.
Humans love the idea of socialism until it comes down to "us vs them" then socialism is the greatest threat there is.
That's not true. You'd have to gauge your eyes out for lusting after a woman. And women? They aren't allowed to reject their husband's sexual advances. Which doesn't sound extreme until it turns out hes got a scat fetish.
Hyperbole is a rhetorical device.
Accept its existence or die.
The first part of your argument kinda supports mine.
Jesus said if you can't quit staring at, or keep your fuckin hands off women, cause you're so pathetic about attractive women, gouge your eyes out and cut off your hands. Cause you're the problem.
As for the second part was that something Jesus himself preached? Or is that more of that Paul dudes bullshit?
I don't care who wrote that down. None of it was written by jezus anyway.
I had a good landlord, so they’re definitely out there. Mine didn’t raise my rent more than $50 in a decade of living there, and was pretty great and quick about repairs. I am sorry others have had the experience they’ve had, and I think it’s more to do with private equity buying real estate, or some kind of landlord with 10+ units etc. I think the mom/pop landlord with the odd house they rent out when their family isn’t using it are pretty chill. I am sure there are examples to prove me wrong though
You're right, there are good examples out there. The point is they're statistical anomalies not the rule. Landlords by and large serve very little societal purpose.
if they don't serve a purpose, then where are we supposed to live when we're only staying in a place for a few months or years?
Or what if I'm trying to save up money to buy a house? Am I just supposed to live in a hotel, or on the street?
If only there was an option somewhere between a hotel and buying a house... 🤔
When a house is an investment that grows in value society attempts to maximize scarcity, fewer houses or higher demand means more growth in their value. But imagine we lived in a society where we had more houses than we need, a surplus, because we valued housing people whenever they needed housing and we knew roughly how many houses we needed to do that.
You could move anywhere and find a house to own at a cost you could afford. Imagine housing wasn't a massive store of value such that multiple bureaucratic steps were created to nickle and dime the transaction. Buying a home could be easy.
You could find a vacant house or one that has leaving owners, inspection papers were regulated and up to date, you could buy it off of them using your money or a loan from the government, and you could move in just like if you were renting.
You don't have to save up for money to buy a home in a society where housing people is a priority. Housing would be cheaper, cost of living would be lower, purchasing power would be higher, and we could have methods in place for transitioning ownership without requiring a lump sum of cash cause no one's expecting a massive windfall immediately. Ya know, loans.
Living on the street would be a fictional concept, encouraging homelessness is a societal choice - we could house everyone on the streets within the year if we wanted to. Does that mean long term hotels wouldn't exist? No. That's an actual service being provided.
I'm just saying, if landlords served a purpose we could enable that service as a society but if housing wasn't an investment vehicle it's pretty clear the number of landlords would plummet over night and we'd quickly realize relatively few people liked the "service" they were receiving.
you sound exactly like every capitalist. There's infinite resources! We don't live in 3 dimensional space!
jeezus, you're somewhere between insane and delusional.
also, lol at how you have no idea how loans work.
Well I wouldn't describe myself as a capitalist per se. I don't believe there's infinite resources but I do believe there are better, more efficient ways of distributing them - especially with housing. We definitely live in 3d space, I don't really know what this comment is referring to or it's use.
Probably a bit of both, insane and delusional, but I also think imagining a better solution requires a smidge of both.
Again, your loan comment doesn't make much sense to me because you failed to contributing a meaningful comment - you could elaborate but I suspect you don't believe government financing is a thing? Or that interest rates can be zero? I'm not really sure, but I can elaborate my original concept - because I'm not an Internet troll and I genuinely want people to imagine and work towards a better future.
Houses are expensive products, we can agree on that, even if they weren't investment vehicles it takes a team of people months to construct a good house and a lot longer for an apartment or larger complex. Since everyone should be able to own their home, pretending for second we went so far as to abolish the concept of renting, we would need people to be able to afford housing immediately upon becoming an adult and choosing to live somewhere else. Normally we think of this as rent, we pay someone else's mortgage with our money because we didn't have the capital to purchase it directly in the past. I. My proposed future, there'd be no landlords to pay mortgages for, so we'd take out our own mortgage to pay for our housing.
Now I think this is where people imagine today's mortgages and systems being imposed on an 18 year old and think that's foolish. That's why i clarify housing as a product instead of an investment vehicle is cheaper, and housing as a right or a goal of society means mortgages aren't for profit. So someone buys a home that costs less than todays home using a loan who's interest is less than todays interest - likely the first from the previous owner, construction company, or the government and the second from some level of government.
It's how loans work but instead of for profit they're for the betterment of society. We do this all the time for various reasons today. The PPP loans being forgiven is one example, so is 0% student loans, and if the government wanted to charge 1-2% interest for a good reason we have historical precedent to that as well. Idk what about this is so hard to understand for you but hopefully this helps. :p
tl;dr
A non-market housing unit. Basically, a non-profit org that only charges the actual cost of the housing & maintenance.
Christianity was invented by landlords, maybe not the Christ parts specifically but the rest for sure
Ianity was invented by landlords
People think the oxymoron is between 'Good Christian' and 'Landlord'.
When it is in fact between 'Good' and 'Christian'.
This is ridiculous. There are a lot of sanctimonious fundamentalists in the world, and there are a lot of genuinely good people who identify as Christian. Some of the best people I know are Christians. They're not inherently hateful bigots, in fact I'd wager those are a loud minority.
There are good people who are Christian, sure. But they're only good people because they are bad Christians. They (their denomination) have cherry picked the least contentious passages and ignored the most hateful.
A 'Good Christian' is a creature of bigotry and contradiction, who spares no bias for which passages are morally good or bad. In some sense, The Westborough Baptist Church embrace many of the worst aspects of Christianity, they are Good Christians (but bad people).
This is nonsense. The bad people who call themselves Christians are the ones cherry picking bigotry. The Christian message is, fundamentally, "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:30-31). There are a lot of hateful bigots who put a cross on the building, and those are the loud minority. A good Christian is one who prays quietly alone at home, not shoving their religion in other people's faces (Matthew 5:6).
Westboro Baptists are bad Christians, as are any others who spew hate and intolerance against others.
1 Timothy 2:12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
It's Christianity - not Timothanity.
Okay. When I say "Christian" I'm referring to followers of the teachings of Jesus. Lots of people have a lot of commentary about a lot of things. One of those people was Paul, who wasn't a disciple and never met Jesus. Timothy is, purportedly, Paul's correspondence with some guy named Timothy. There are many who feel that Paul seriously corrupted the original Christian message.
Forgive me if I don't consider the Pauline epistles to be representative of the core Christian message.
Lol here we go with the moving of goal posts.
Pack it up guys, our work here is done.
The Christian message is not fundamentally anything you can fit onto a post it note.
If you were to take everything the bible condones/encourages, you would get a list of some good stuff, and some bad stuff.
The problem is, the bad stuff is really, really bad.
The Bible is the Torah + the Gospels of Jesus + a ton of editorialized commentary, filtered through multiple stages of politicized selection. Yes, the fundamentals fit on a post it: love God with all your heart, love your neighbor as yourself. All the rest is parables and commentary, some by Jesus, some by less gregarious personages.
Some modern "Christians" obsess over the less gregarious commentaries (e.g. Paul), some obsess over twisted interpretations of these already twisted commentaries. Such is history.
But the message is the golden rule: love thy neighbor as thyself. All the rest is parables to illustrate variations on that theme. The bad stuff was added later, and it's the same exact bad stuff that creeps into any emergent structure. Shitty people will gravitate to The Current Popular Thing to peddle their shitty ideologies, especially if they can creep in under the premise of divine sanction.
You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe that centuries-later editorialization by opportunistic shit-heads is representative of the core ideologies of an older movement.
What a load of shit lol.
Let's keep arguing, you're getting real close to convincing me your religion isn't a load of dog shit splashed over a fat girls cunt.
You said you blame capitalism for problems, I assume you like Communism/Socialism?
Stalin co-opted Communism, that means Communism supports authoritarianism right? National Socialists are obviously Socialists since they took the name and published a lot of stuff right? That means Good Communists support Siberian prison work camps and Good Socialists support the Holocaust, right? Any Communist or Socialist who acts like a decent human being in spite of the evils done in the name of a twisted simulacrum of Communism or Socialism is a Bad Communist/Socialist, right?
Otherwise, you'd have to acknowledge that sometimes, over the course of a movement, bad actors try to co-opt the name of that movement for their own corrupt personal gain, and that sometimes if those bad actors have secured significant political influence they can manufacture consensus on the "official" beliefs of that movement through "official" publications.
So choose: is Hitler a Good Socialist, or is Paul a Bad Christian?
I'm sure we can both agree that Hitler wasn't a socialist.
The difference here is that you presuppose people are poorly interpreting the bible when they choose one contradiction over another.
There is no interpretation of communism where the current state of China is permitted.
The bible CLEARLY endorses/encourages/condones MANY fucked up stances and never corrects for them.
Paul is a good Christian, since what he says is in the bible.
There's no difference, you're just a hypocrite. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: either a message is corruptible, or it isn't. Either the total corpus of Christianity/Communism is canon, or it isn't. Either the evils enshrined in later "Communist" literature is sacrosanct, or the evils enshrined in later "Christian" literature is suspect. "The Bible" is a political corruption of Christianity no less than modern China is a political corruption of Communism. If the Bible denotes the definitive Christianity, then Mao denotes the definitive Marxism.
To claim otherwise it's hypocritical double-speak. Are you a hypocrite, or do you acknowledge the Bible might be a slightly more politically compromised document than you've heretofore claimed?
You're a hypocrite.
There are no inconsistencies in the communist manifesto as far as I'm aware. It certainly doesn't endorse totalitarian dictatorships or genocide (though the bible does, multiple times).
Yet, your bible details rules for slaves and never corrects itself. The bible endorses and encourages slavery. You just choose to ignore it.
I'm not a hypocrite.
The Bible is a particular selection of disparate writings collected over centuries and codified millennia after the events described.
By like comparison, Communism as a corpus is composed of the exploits of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
The gospels of Christianity are more similar to the Manifesto itself, and contain none of the dictatorships or genocides to which you allude. The gospels do not encourage slavery. If you judge the Bible based on the commentaries and political corruptions, then so judge Communism by gulags and genocides. If one is corruption, then both are. If one is canon, then both are. If you judge Christianity by Paul, judge Communism by Mao. Mao published. Paul published. If it's unfair to judge Communism by Mao, it's unfair to judge Christianity by Paul.
Make up your mind.
Oh look... an edgelord atheist still obsessed with blaming religion for everything.
Yawn.
Hey, I also blame capitalism for everything, don't sell me short.
You have a fundamentally flawed viewpoint that all Christian denominations take equally and at its core believe 100% the Bible in every word no exception. You can’t blame innocent Christians at the local church who fly rainbow flags and BLM flags for some dictator committing genocide elsewhere with a biblical justification. There’s a huge spectrum there just like anything else. Yeah a good majority is trash and lots of the people are trash, but by instantly assuming that a Christian is a bad person or that they are a good person but bad at their religion makes you trash. L
You're missing the point. These Christians who are flying rainbow flags and marching in BLM protests are good people.
They are however, not good Christians. The bible outright says gays will go to hell. If you want to read some external shit into it to make you feel like your book doesn't say you're siding with abominations, go ahead.
It's not the people, it's indoctrination. They're just as much of a victim as anyone else.
I'm keenly aware of that as I have recovered from religion.
The fact remains that being a Christian is at odds with being a good person. Bigotry is baked in to Christianity. If you want to cherry pick the good parts, that's great, but it doesn't erase the suffering which is still being perpetrated due to the explicit wording in the bible.
There are warlords in Africa who justify enslavement because the bibles explicitly permits it, and never makes any effort to clarify that slavery should no longer be permitted.
You would think that at some point, God would want to convey to everyone that slavery was a symptom of the times, thousands of years ago, and is no longer permitted as of the New Testament, but that never happens.