|
On April 02 2020 02:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 01:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I also don't see why landlords/mortgage holders have this sacred status as these individuals that "must" get paid. "Oh, well we have bills to pay!" Yea, every fucking person and entity in the country does, and yet countless businesses have been forced to close and millions have lost their jobs or been furloughed. The healthcare system "must" get paid for all of the care they give and the tests they do, and yet society-at-large (and the government) took all of two seconds to call for all care related to COVID-19 to be free to the patient. This example is borne out in quite a few different industries, and yet shelter, of all goods (i.e. a basic necessity of life) seems to be the sticking point. It's not so much that they "must" be paid as much as it is that standard market rules are being suspended in this context. If evictions are still allowed, and landlords can take the standard actions in response to tenants refusing to pay - some money will be paid only later, some will never be paid, and that's just a cost of doing business. But when bad-faith tenants are essentially allowed to squat on the landlord's dime because the law says they can't be evicted for X months, that's much more exploitative on the tenant's part than a mere inability to pay. Tenants who have genuine hardship should be protected; ones who abuse the system not so much.
If we're going to do that to the tenants should't we do that to the owners? So long as the owners won't be deprived basic food and shelter they too should have surplus property taken. If the banks can't make the tax payments on all the property they take on (they can't we know from 08 they are miserable at every aspect of real estate transactions) then the government should take ownership. Then they can pass the administration back down to the localities which should be constituted of worker councils
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 02 2020 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 02:30 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 01:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I also don't see why landlords/mortgage holders have this sacred status as these individuals that "must" get paid. "Oh, well we have bills to pay!" Yea, every fucking person and entity in the country does, and yet countless businesses have been forced to close and millions have lost their jobs or been furloughed. The healthcare system "must" get paid for all of the care they give and the tests they do, and yet society-at-large (and the government) took all of two seconds to call for all care related to COVID-19 to be free to the patient. This example is borne out in quite a few different industries, and yet shelter, of all goods (i.e. a basic necessity of life) seems to be the sticking point. It's not so much that they "must" be paid as much as it is that standard market rules are being suspended in this context. If evictions are still allowed, and landlords can take the standard actions in response to tenants refusing to pay - some money will be paid only later, some will never be paid, and that's just a cost of doing business. But when bad-faith tenants are essentially allowed to squat on the landlord's dime because the law says they can't be evicted for X months, that's much more exploitative on the tenant's part than a mere inability to pay. Tenants who have genuine hardship should be protected; ones who abuse the system not so much. If we're going to do that to the tenants should't we do that to the owners? So long as the owners won't be deprived basic food and shelter they too should have surplus property taken. If the banks can't make the tax payments on all the property they take on (they can't we know from 08 they are miserable at every aspect of real estate transactions) then the government should take ownership. Then they can pass the administration back down to the localities which should be constituted of worker councils
If the market forces (not government-sanctioned squatting modifications to said forces) say they can't afford to keep their property? Sure, it's reasonable to just let them eat the cost of bad business. Ditto with banks.
Outside of that? If it's in the public interest to collectivize any property beyond primary residence, it wouldn't be unwarranted to compensate them fairly for lost property. "Fairly" doesn't necessarily have to mean "market value" in this context, though the tie-in to the concept of eminent domain is definitely intended.
|
On April 02 2020 03:07 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 02:30 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 01:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I also don't see why landlords/mortgage holders have this sacred status as these individuals that "must" get paid. "Oh, well we have bills to pay!" Yea, every fucking person and entity in the country does, and yet countless businesses have been forced to close and millions have lost their jobs or been furloughed. The healthcare system "must" get paid for all of the care they give and the tests they do, and yet society-at-large (and the government) took all of two seconds to call for all care related to COVID-19 to be free to the patient. This example is borne out in quite a few different industries, and yet shelter, of all goods (i.e. a basic necessity of life) seems to be the sticking point. It's not so much that they "must" be paid as much as it is that standard market rules are being suspended in this context. If evictions are still allowed, and landlords can take the standard actions in response to tenants refusing to pay - some money will be paid only later, some will never be paid, and that's just a cost of doing business. But when bad-faith tenants are essentially allowed to squat on the landlord's dime because the law says they can't be evicted for X months, that's much more exploitative on the tenant's part than a mere inability to pay. Tenants who have genuine hardship should be protected; ones who abuse the system not so much. If we're going to do that to the tenants should't we do that to the owners? So long as the owners won't be deprived basic food and shelter they too should have surplus property taken. If the banks can't make the tax payments on all the property they take on (they can't we know from 08 they are miserable at every aspect of real estate transactions) then the government should take ownership. Then they can pass the administration back down to the localities which should be constituted of worker councils If the market forces (not government-sanctioned squatting modifications to said forces) say they can't afford to keep their property? Sure, it's reasonable to just let them eat the cost of bad business. Ditto with banks. Outside of that? If it's in the public interest to collectivize any property beyond primary residence, it wouldn't be unwarranted to compensate them fairly for lost property. "Fairly" doesn't necessarily have to mean "market value" in this context, though the tie-in to the concept of eminent domain is definitely intended.
Do mass rent strikes fall under market forces in your opinion?
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Here's a letter I just got from my complex. I can afford the rent so it's whatever to me. But it comes across as they are going to force your hand to pay or wait for eviction. That there hasn't been any direction from the government yet tells me they are going to be trying to do something.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 02 2020 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 03:07 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 02:30 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 01:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I also don't see why landlords/mortgage holders have this sacred status as these individuals that "must" get paid. "Oh, well we have bills to pay!" Yea, every fucking person and entity in the country does, and yet countless businesses have been forced to close and millions have lost their jobs or been furloughed. The healthcare system "must" get paid for all of the care they give and the tests they do, and yet society-at-large (and the government) took all of two seconds to call for all care related to COVID-19 to be free to the patient. This example is borne out in quite a few different industries, and yet shelter, of all goods (i.e. a basic necessity of life) seems to be the sticking point. It's not so much that they "must" be paid as much as it is that standard market rules are being suspended in this context. If evictions are still allowed, and landlords can take the standard actions in response to tenants refusing to pay - some money will be paid only later, some will never be paid, and that's just a cost of doing business. But when bad-faith tenants are essentially allowed to squat on the landlord's dime because the law says they can't be evicted for X months, that's much more exploitative on the tenant's part than a mere inability to pay. Tenants who have genuine hardship should be protected; ones who abuse the system not so much. If we're going to do that to the tenants should't we do that to the owners? So long as the owners won't be deprived basic food and shelter they too should have surplus property taken. If the banks can't make the tax payments on all the property they take on (they can't we know from 08 they are miserable at every aspect of real estate transactions) then the government should take ownership. Then they can pass the administration back down to the localities which should be constituted of worker councils If the market forces (not government-sanctioned squatting modifications to said forces) say they can't afford to keep their property? Sure, it's reasonable to just let them eat the cost of bad business. Ditto with banks. Outside of that? If it's in the public interest to collectivize any property beyond primary residence, it wouldn't be unwarranted to compensate them fairly for lost property. "Fairly" doesn't necessarily have to mean "market value" in this context, though the tie-in to the concept of eminent domain is definitely intended. Do mass rent strikes fall under market forces in your opinion?
As long as the option of eviction is still open - yes, very much so.
|
On April 02 2020 03:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:07 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 02:30 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 01:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I also don't see why landlords/mortgage holders have this sacred status as these individuals that "must" get paid. "Oh, well we have bills to pay!" Yea, every fucking person and entity in the country does, and yet countless businesses have been forced to close and millions have lost their jobs or been furloughed. The healthcare system "must" get paid for all of the care they give and the tests they do, and yet society-at-large (and the government) took all of two seconds to call for all care related to COVID-19 to be free to the patient. This example is borne out in quite a few different industries, and yet shelter, of all goods (i.e. a basic necessity of life) seems to be the sticking point. It's not so much that they "must" be paid as much as it is that standard market rules are being suspended in this context. If evictions are still allowed, and landlords can take the standard actions in response to tenants refusing to pay - some money will be paid only later, some will never be paid, and that's just a cost of doing business. But when bad-faith tenants are essentially allowed to squat on the landlord's dime because the law says they can't be evicted for X months, that's much more exploitative on the tenant's part than a mere inability to pay. Tenants who have genuine hardship should be protected; ones who abuse the system not so much. If we're going to do that to the tenants should't we do that to the owners? So long as the owners won't be deprived basic food and shelter they too should have surplus property taken. If the banks can't make the tax payments on all the property they take on (they can't we know from 08 they are miserable at every aspect of real estate transactions) then the government should take ownership. Then they can pass the administration back down to the localities which should be constituted of worker councils If the market forces (not government-sanctioned squatting modifications to said forces) say they can't afford to keep their property? Sure, it's reasonable to just let them eat the cost of bad business. Ditto with banks. Outside of that? If it's in the public interest to collectivize any property beyond primary residence, it wouldn't be unwarranted to compensate them fairly for lost property. "Fairly" doesn't necessarily have to mean "market value" in this context, though the tie-in to the concept of eminent domain is definitely intended. Do mass rent strikes fall under market forces in your opinion? As long as the option of eviction is still open - yes, very much so.
Who do you expect to enforce those evictions and what extent of force would you condone were those renters to defend themselves from being thrown into the street?
|
Wouldn't most renters just have to go live back home with their parents or family where they may/may not have to pay rent anyway? Why would they be entitled to stay in a place they cannot afford? It's only fair that if renters do not pay then property owners no longer have to pay property taxes / management costs etc.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 02 2020 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:07 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 02:30 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 01:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I also don't see why landlords/mortgage holders have this sacred status as these individuals that "must" get paid. "Oh, well we have bills to pay!" Yea, every fucking person and entity in the country does, and yet countless businesses have been forced to close and millions have lost their jobs or been furloughed. The healthcare system "must" get paid for all of the care they give and the tests they do, and yet society-at-large (and the government) took all of two seconds to call for all care related to COVID-19 to be free to the patient. This example is borne out in quite a few different industries, and yet shelter, of all goods (i.e. a basic necessity of life) seems to be the sticking point. It's not so much that they "must" be paid as much as it is that standard market rules are being suspended in this context. If evictions are still allowed, and landlords can take the standard actions in response to tenants refusing to pay - some money will be paid only later, some will never be paid, and that's just a cost of doing business. But when bad-faith tenants are essentially allowed to squat on the landlord's dime because the law says they can't be evicted for X months, that's much more exploitative on the tenant's part than a mere inability to pay. Tenants who have genuine hardship should be protected; ones who abuse the system not so much. If we're going to do that to the tenants should't we do that to the owners? So long as the owners won't be deprived basic food and shelter they too should have surplus property taken. If the banks can't make the tax payments on all the property they take on (they can't we know from 08 they are miserable at every aspect of real estate transactions) then the government should take ownership. Then they can pass the administration back down to the localities which should be constituted of worker councils If the market forces (not government-sanctioned squatting modifications to said forces) say they can't afford to keep their property? Sure, it's reasonable to just let them eat the cost of bad business. Ditto with banks. Outside of that? If it's in the public interest to collectivize any property beyond primary residence, it wouldn't be unwarranted to compensate them fairly for lost property. "Fairly" doesn't necessarily have to mean "market value" in this context, though the tie-in to the concept of eminent domain is definitely intended. Do mass rent strikes fall under market forces in your opinion? As long as the option of eviction is still open - yes, very much so. Who do you expect to enforce those evictions and what extent of force would you condone were those renters to defend themselves from being thrown into the street?
The standard legal process is appropriate. Landlord follows the standard process to get an eviction order, and let the court enforce that order the way they normally would.
You're clearly trying to build up towards a bigger point; might as well make that point instead of doing it piecemeal.
|
On April 02 2020 04:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:07 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 02:30 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 01:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I also don't see why landlords/mortgage holders have this sacred status as these individuals that "must" get paid. "Oh, well we have bills to pay!" Yea, every fucking person and entity in the country does, and yet countless businesses have been forced to close and millions have lost their jobs or been furloughed. The healthcare system "must" get paid for all of the care they give and the tests they do, and yet society-at-large (and the government) took all of two seconds to call for all care related to COVID-19 to be free to the patient. This example is borne out in quite a few different industries, and yet shelter, of all goods (i.e. a basic necessity of life) seems to be the sticking point. It's not so much that they "must" be paid as much as it is that standard market rules are being suspended in this context. If evictions are still allowed, and landlords can take the standard actions in response to tenants refusing to pay - some money will be paid only later, some will never be paid, and that's just a cost of doing business. But when bad-faith tenants are essentially allowed to squat on the landlord's dime because the law says they can't be evicted for X months, that's much more exploitative on the tenant's part than a mere inability to pay. Tenants who have genuine hardship should be protected; ones who abuse the system not so much. If we're going to do that to the tenants should't we do that to the owners? So long as the owners won't be deprived basic food and shelter they too should have surplus property taken. If the banks can't make the tax payments on all the property they take on (they can't we know from 08 they are miserable at every aspect of real estate transactions) then the government should take ownership. Then they can pass the administration back down to the localities which should be constituted of worker councils If the market forces (not government-sanctioned squatting modifications to said forces) say they can't afford to keep their property? Sure, it's reasonable to just let them eat the cost of bad business. Ditto with banks. Outside of that? If it's in the public interest to collectivize any property beyond primary residence, it wouldn't be unwarranted to compensate them fairly for lost property. "Fairly" doesn't necessarily have to mean "market value" in this context, though the tie-in to the concept of eminent domain is definitely intended. Do mass rent strikes fall under market forces in your opinion? As long as the option of eviction is still open - yes, very much so. Who do you expect to enforce those evictions and what extent of force would you condone were those renters to defend themselves from being thrown into the street? The standard legal process is appropriate. Landlord follows the standard process to get an eviction order, and let the court enforce that order the way they normally would. You're clearly trying to build up towards a bigger point; might as well make that point instead of doing it piecemeal.
I'm taking care not to assume anything about your argument and make sure I understand it correctly.
So when the police come to evict and the tenants refuse, what extent of force would you condone the police using to remove them. Lethal?
Would you have the police kill tenants that refuse to be left to live on the streets?
|
United States41671 Posts
On April 02 2020 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 04:09 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:07 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 02:30 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 01:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I also don't see why landlords/mortgage holders have this sacred status as these individuals that "must" get paid. "Oh, well we have bills to pay!" Yea, every fucking person and entity in the country does, and yet countless businesses have been forced to close and millions have lost their jobs or been furloughed. The healthcare system "must" get paid for all of the care they give and the tests they do, and yet society-at-large (and the government) took all of two seconds to call for all care related to COVID-19 to be free to the patient. This example is borne out in quite a few different industries, and yet shelter, of all goods (i.e. a basic necessity of life) seems to be the sticking point. It's not so much that they "must" be paid as much as it is that standard market rules are being suspended in this context. If evictions are still allowed, and landlords can take the standard actions in response to tenants refusing to pay - some money will be paid only later, some will never be paid, and that's just a cost of doing business. But when bad-faith tenants are essentially allowed to squat on the landlord's dime because the law says they can't be evicted for X months, that's much more exploitative on the tenant's part than a mere inability to pay. Tenants who have genuine hardship should be protected; ones who abuse the system not so much. If we're going to do that to the tenants should't we do that to the owners? So long as the owners won't be deprived basic food and shelter they too should have surplus property taken. If the banks can't make the tax payments on all the property they take on (they can't we know from 08 they are miserable at every aspect of real estate transactions) then the government should take ownership. Then they can pass the administration back down to the localities which should be constituted of worker councils If the market forces (not government-sanctioned squatting modifications to said forces) say they can't afford to keep their property? Sure, it's reasonable to just let them eat the cost of bad business. Ditto with banks. Outside of that? If it's in the public interest to collectivize any property beyond primary residence, it wouldn't be unwarranted to compensate them fairly for lost property. "Fairly" doesn't necessarily have to mean "market value" in this context, though the tie-in to the concept of eminent domain is definitely intended. Do mass rent strikes fall under market forces in your opinion? As long as the option of eviction is still open - yes, very much so. Who do you expect to enforce those evictions and what extent of force would you condone were those renters to defend themselves from being thrown into the street? The standard legal process is appropriate. Landlord follows the standard process to get an eviction order, and let the court enforce that order the way they normally would. You're clearly trying to build up towards a bigger point; might as well make that point instead of doing it piecemeal. I'm taking care not to assume anything about your argument and make sure I understand it correctly. So when the police come to evict and the tenants refuse, what extent of force would you condone the police using to remove them. Lethal? Would you have the police kill tenants that refuse to be left to live on the streets?
All state force is ultimately backed by lethal force but it would be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for property rights to be enforced as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance to the state did ultimately result in death.
|
On April 02 2020 04:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 04:09 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:07 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 02:30 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 01:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I also don't see why landlords/mortgage holders have this sacred status as these individuals that "must" get paid. "Oh, well we have bills to pay!" Yea, every fucking person and entity in the country does, and yet countless businesses have been forced to close and millions have lost their jobs or been furloughed. The healthcare system "must" get paid for all of the care they give and the tests they do, and yet society-at-large (and the government) took all of two seconds to call for all care related to COVID-19 to be free to the patient. This example is borne out in quite a few different industries, and yet shelter, of all goods (i.e. a basic necessity of life) seems to be the sticking point. It's not so much that they "must" be paid as much as it is that standard market rules are being suspended in this context. If evictions are still allowed, and landlords can take the standard actions in response to tenants refusing to pay - some money will be paid only later, some will never be paid, and that's just a cost of doing business. But when bad-faith tenants are essentially allowed to squat on the landlord's dime because the law says they can't be evicted for X months, that's much more exploitative on the tenant's part than a mere inability to pay. Tenants who have genuine hardship should be protected; ones who abuse the system not so much. If we're going to do that to the tenants should't we do that to the owners? So long as the owners won't be deprived basic food and shelter they too should have surplus property taken. If the banks can't make the tax payments on all the property they take on (they can't we know from 08 they are miserable at every aspect of real estate transactions) then the government should take ownership. Then they can pass the administration back down to the localities which should be constituted of worker councils If the market forces (not government-sanctioned squatting modifications to said forces) say they can't afford to keep their property? Sure, it's reasonable to just let them eat the cost of bad business. Ditto with banks. Outside of that? If it's in the public interest to collectivize any property beyond primary residence, it wouldn't be unwarranted to compensate them fairly for lost property. "Fairly" doesn't necessarily have to mean "market value" in this context, though the tie-in to the concept of eminent domain is definitely intended. Do mass rent strikes fall under market forces in your opinion? As long as the option of eviction is still open - yes, very much so. Who do you expect to enforce those evictions and what extent of force would you condone were those renters to defend themselves from being thrown into the street? The standard legal process is appropriate. Landlord follows the standard process to get an eviction order, and let the court enforce that order the way they normally would. You're clearly trying to build up towards a bigger point; might as well make that point instead of doing it piecemeal. I'm taking care not to assume anything about your argument and make sure I understand it correctly. So when the police come to evict and the tenants refuse, what extent of force would you condone the police using to remove them. Lethal? Would you have the police kill tenants that refuse to be left to live on the streets? All state force is ultimately backed by lethal force but it would be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for property rights to be enforced as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance to the state did ultimately result in death.
If it's good for the state it's good for the tenant, no? It would also be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for human rights (Art. 25) as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance by the state did ultimately result in death.
|
United States41671 Posts
On April 02 2020 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 04:45 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 04:09 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:07 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 02:30 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
It's not so much that they "must" be paid as much as it is that standard market rules are being suspended in this context. If evictions are still allowed, and landlords can take the standard actions in response to tenants refusing to pay - some money will be paid only later, some will never be paid, and that's just a cost of doing business. But when bad-faith tenants are essentially allowed to squat on the landlord's dime because the law says they can't be evicted for X months, that's much more exploitative on the tenant's part than a mere inability to pay.
Tenants who have genuine hardship should be protected; ones who abuse the system not so much. If we're going to do that to the tenants should't we do that to the owners? So long as the owners won't be deprived basic food and shelter they too should have surplus property taken. If the banks can't make the tax payments on all the property they take on (they can't we know from 08 they are miserable at every aspect of real estate transactions) then the government should take ownership. Then they can pass the administration back down to the localities which should be constituted of worker councils If the market forces (not government-sanctioned squatting modifications to said forces) say they can't afford to keep their property? Sure, it's reasonable to just let them eat the cost of bad business. Ditto with banks. Outside of that? If it's in the public interest to collectivize any property beyond primary residence, it wouldn't be unwarranted to compensate them fairly for lost property. "Fairly" doesn't necessarily have to mean "market value" in this context, though the tie-in to the concept of eminent domain is definitely intended. Do mass rent strikes fall under market forces in your opinion? As long as the option of eviction is still open - yes, very much so. Who do you expect to enforce those evictions and what extent of force would you condone were those renters to defend themselves from being thrown into the street? The standard legal process is appropriate. Landlord follows the standard process to get an eviction order, and let the court enforce that order the way they normally would. You're clearly trying to build up towards a bigger point; might as well make that point instead of doing it piecemeal. I'm taking care not to assume anything about your argument and make sure I understand it correctly. So when the police come to evict and the tenants refuse, what extent of force would you condone the police using to remove them. Lethal? Would you have the police kill tenants that refuse to be left to live on the streets? All state force is ultimately backed by lethal force but it would be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for property rights to be enforced as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance to the state did ultimately result in death. If it's good for the state it's good for the tenant, no? It would also be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for human rights (Art. 25) as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance by the state did ultimately result in death.
Those ideals create a burden on the state to achieve them, they do not give license for individuals to occupy the houses of other individuals. We’re also moving past the point which is that the thing where person A says “I think there should be a law against something relatively minor” and then person B, here played by you, says “so you think the police should kill anyone who does that minor thing! You’re a monster!” and then person A says they never said that but person B argues that because all laws are backed by state force and that violent resistance of state force results in death then really that is what they argued for is a stupid argument.
It’s a stupid argument and you shouldn’t be trying it. Yes, all laws are ultimately enforced at gun point. No, that doesn’t mean that people should be shot if they don’t leave any more than it means jaywalkers should be shot.
|
Very nearly this exact argument is why people don’t like arguing with libertarians.
|
On April 02 2020 05:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 04:45 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 04:09 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:07 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
If we're going to do that to the tenants should't we do that to the owners? So long as the owners won't be deprived basic food and shelter they too should have surplus property taken. If the banks can't make the tax payments on all the property they take on (they can't we know from 08 they are miserable at every aspect of real estate transactions) then the government should take ownership. Then they can pass the administration back down to the localities which should be constituted of worker councils If the market forces (not government-sanctioned squatting modifications to said forces) say they can't afford to keep their property? Sure, it's reasonable to just let them eat the cost of bad business. Ditto with banks. Outside of that? If it's in the public interest to collectivize any property beyond primary residence, it wouldn't be unwarranted to compensate them fairly for lost property. "Fairly" doesn't necessarily have to mean "market value" in this context, though the tie-in to the concept of eminent domain is definitely intended. Do mass rent strikes fall under market forces in your opinion? As long as the option of eviction is still open - yes, very much so. Who do you expect to enforce those evictions and what extent of force would you condone were those renters to defend themselves from being thrown into the street? The standard legal process is appropriate. Landlord follows the standard process to get an eviction order, and let the court enforce that order the way they normally would. You're clearly trying to build up towards a bigger point; might as well make that point instead of doing it piecemeal. I'm taking care not to assume anything about your argument and make sure I understand it correctly. So when the police come to evict and the tenants refuse, what extent of force would you condone the police using to remove them. Lethal? Would you have the police kill tenants that refuse to be left to live on the streets? All state force is ultimately backed by lethal force but it would be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for property rights to be enforced as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance to the state did ultimately result in death. If it's good for the state it's good for the tenant, no? It would also be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for human rights (Art. 25) as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance by the state did ultimately result in death. Those ideals create a burden on the state to achieve them, they do not give license for individuals to occupy the houses of other individuals. We’re also moving past the point which is that the thing where person A says “I think there should be a law against something relatively minor” and then person B, here played by you, says “so you think the police should kill anyone who does that minor thing! You’re a monster!” and then person A says they never said that but person B argues that because all laws are backed by state force and that violent resistance of state force results in death then really that is what they argued for is a stupid argument. It’s a stupid argument and you shouldn’t be trying it. Yes, all laws are ultimately enforced at gun point. No, that doesn’t mean that people should be shot if they don’t leave any more than it means jaywalkers should be shot.
Which is my point. Rent strikers have the leverage and unless the people doing the evicting/supporting it think people should get killed for not leaving, then they don't get evicted.
|
United States41671 Posts
On April 02 2020 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 05:46 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 04:45 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 04:09 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:07 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
If the market forces (not government-sanctioned squatting modifications to said forces) say they can't afford to keep their property? Sure, it's reasonable to just let them eat the cost of bad business. Ditto with banks.
Outside of that? If it's in the public interest to collectivize any property beyond primary residence, it wouldn't be unwarranted to compensate them fairly for lost property. "Fairly" doesn't necessarily have to mean "market value" in this context, though the tie-in to the concept of eminent domain is definitely intended. Do mass rent strikes fall under market forces in your opinion? As long as the option of eviction is still open - yes, very much so. Who do you expect to enforce those evictions and what extent of force would you condone were those renters to defend themselves from being thrown into the street? The standard legal process is appropriate. Landlord follows the standard process to get an eviction order, and let the court enforce that order the way they normally would. You're clearly trying to build up towards a bigger point; might as well make that point instead of doing it piecemeal. I'm taking care not to assume anything about your argument and make sure I understand it correctly. So when the police come to evict and the tenants refuse, what extent of force would you condone the police using to remove them. Lethal? Would you have the police kill tenants that refuse to be left to live on the streets? All state force is ultimately backed by lethal force but it would be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for property rights to be enforced as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance to the state did ultimately result in death. If it's good for the state it's good for the tenant, no? It would also be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for human rights (Art. 25) as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance by the state did ultimately result in death. Those ideals create a burden on the state to achieve them, they do not give license for individuals to occupy the houses of other individuals. We’re also moving past the point which is that the thing where person A says “I think there should be a law against something relatively minor” and then person B, here played by you, says “so you think the police should kill anyone who does that minor thing! You’re a monster!” and then person A says they never said that but person B argues that because all laws are backed by state force and that violent resistance of state force results in death then really that is what they argued for is a stupid argument. It’s a stupid argument and you shouldn’t be trying it. Yes, all laws are ultimately enforced at gun point. No, that doesn’t mean that people should be shot if they don’t leave any more than it means jaywalkers should be shot. Which is my point. Rent strikers have the leverage and unless the people doing the evicting/supporting it think people should get shot for not leaving, then they don't get evicted.
No they don’t. It’s not the trespass that gets them shot, it’s the violent resistance to the police attempting to remove them when they’re trespassing. While people are generally not okay with police shooting people for trespass they become much warmer when police shoot people for resisting, regardless of the original cause.
Furthermore the police seem to like shooting people quite a lot and so the proposed leverage (people don’t want the homeless to be shot) doesn’t work as well as you’d hope. While the public may eventually demand reform as the police flood the streets with blood that doesn’t help the dead very much.
For them to have leverage they would need to be more willing to die for the cause than the police are to shoot them. Most people generally don’t want to die that badly.
|
On April 02 2020 06:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 05:46 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 04:45 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 04:09 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Do mass rent strikes fall under market forces in your opinion?
As long as the option of eviction is still open - yes, very much so. Who do you expect to enforce those evictions and what extent of force would you condone were those renters to defend themselves from being thrown into the street? The standard legal process is appropriate. Landlord follows the standard process to get an eviction order, and let the court enforce that order the way they normally would. You're clearly trying to build up towards a bigger point; might as well make that point instead of doing it piecemeal. I'm taking care not to assume anything about your argument and make sure I understand it correctly. So when the police come to evict and the tenants refuse, what extent of force would you condone the police using to remove them. Lethal? Would you have the police kill tenants that refuse to be left to live on the streets? All state force is ultimately backed by lethal force but it would be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for property rights to be enforced as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance to the state did ultimately result in death. If it's good for the state it's good for the tenant, no? It would also be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for human rights (Art. 25) as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance by the state did ultimately result in death. Those ideals create a burden on the state to achieve them, they do not give license for individuals to occupy the houses of other individuals. We’re also moving past the point which is that the thing where person A says “I think there should be a law against something relatively minor” and then person B, here played by you, says “so you think the police should kill anyone who does that minor thing! You’re a monster!” and then person A says they never said that but person B argues that because all laws are backed by state force and that violent resistance of state force results in death then really that is what they argued for is a stupid argument. It’s a stupid argument and you shouldn’t be trying it. Yes, all laws are ultimately enforced at gun point. No, that doesn’t mean that people should be shot if they don’t leave any more than it means jaywalkers should be shot. Which is my point. Rent strikers have the leverage and unless the people doing the evicting/supporting it think people should get shot for not leaving, then they don't get evicted. No they don’t. It’s not the trespass that gets them shot, it’s the violent resistance to the police attempting to remove them when they’re trespassing. While people are generally not okay with police shooting people for trespass they become much warmer when police shoot people for resisting, regardless of the original cause. Furthermore the police seem to like shooting people quite a lot and so the proposed leverage (people don’t want the homeless to be shot) doesn’t work as well as you’d hope. While the public may eventually demand reform as the police flood the streets with blood that doesn’t help the dead very much. For them to have leverage they would need to be more willing to die for the cause than the police are to shoot them. Most people generally don’t want to die that badly.
Well that's where a global pandemic and collapsing economy comes in. It shifts the perception of everything. The reason the Governors are the ones stopping evictions right now is that they know despite the "rules" saying the landlords should be able to evict, they would lose control of the situation rapidly if they allowed landlords and police the discretion to enforce evictions at their will.
Also why Republican governors are less likely to do it because they implicitly trust those parties and, like the virus, aren't going to realize the storm they're brewing till it kicks them in the metaphorical face.
The key for tenants is organizing so they can keep the leverage when the pandemic abates and if/when the economy recovers. Ensuring that after months of rent freezes and whatever they are collectively represented in the solution instead of getting shafted by pitting us against each other like usual.
EDIT: I'd add that at least notionally (ymmv) most all states are still allowing eviction procedures for things that aren't paying rent.
|
On April 02 2020 03:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Here's a letter I just got from my complex. I can afford the rent so it's whatever to me. But it comes across as they are going to force your hand to pay or wait for eviction. That there hasn't been any direction from the government yet tells me they are going to be trying to do something.
That is one of the rudest letters I've seen in a while. Reading between the lines I get "we don't care about your Corona virus hardships. You'd better pay the rent or we will take steps to evict you. The government might stop us, but we'll damn sure try".
If my landlord sent me a letter like that, I'd be tempted to not pay the rent even if I did have the money and had been planning on paying the rent as usual. Luckily my landlords are a friendly elderly couple for whom this flat is an investment with an eye on their retirement.
|
Reads like a pretty standard letter to me, I would even put it on the nicer side? I don't see how it is especially outrageous or anything of the sort.
If you want a general change due to extraordinary events/corona it has to come from the goverment, not from each individual landlord.
|
On April 02 2020 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 06:05 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 05:46 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 04:45 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 04:09 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
As long as the option of eviction is still open - yes, very much so. Who do you expect to enforce those evictions and what extent of force would you condone were those renters to defend themselves from being thrown into the street? The standard legal process is appropriate. Landlord follows the standard process to get an eviction order, and let the court enforce that order the way they normally would. You're clearly trying to build up towards a bigger point; might as well make that point instead of doing it piecemeal. I'm taking care not to assume anything about your argument and make sure I understand it correctly. So when the police come to evict and the tenants refuse, what extent of force would you condone the police using to remove them. Lethal? Would you have the police kill tenants that refuse to be left to live on the streets? All state force is ultimately backed by lethal force but it would be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for property rights to be enforced as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance to the state did ultimately result in death. If it's good for the state it's good for the tenant, no? It would also be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for human rights (Art. 25) as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance by the state did ultimately result in death. Those ideals create a burden on the state to achieve them, they do not give license for individuals to occupy the houses of other individuals. We’re also moving past the point which is that the thing where person A says “I think there should be a law against something relatively minor” and then person B, here played by you, says “so you think the police should kill anyone who does that minor thing! You’re a monster!” and then person A says they never said that but person B argues that because all laws are backed by state force and that violent resistance of state force results in death then really that is what they argued for is a stupid argument. It’s a stupid argument and you shouldn’t be trying it. Yes, all laws are ultimately enforced at gun point. No, that doesn’t mean that people should be shot if they don’t leave any more than it means jaywalkers should be shot. Which is my point. Rent strikers have the leverage and unless the people doing the evicting/supporting it think people should get shot for not leaving, then they don't get evicted. No they don’t. It’s not the trespass that gets them shot, it’s the violent resistance to the police attempting to remove them when they’re trespassing. While people are generally not okay with police shooting people for trespass they become much warmer when police shoot people for resisting, regardless of the original cause. Furthermore the police seem to like shooting people quite a lot and so the proposed leverage (people don’t want the homeless to be shot) doesn’t work as well as you’d hope. While the public may eventually demand reform as the police flood the streets with blood that doesn’t help the dead very much. For them to have leverage they would need to be more willing to die for the cause than the police are to shoot them. Most people generally don’t want to die that badly. Well that's where a global pandemic and collapsing economy comes in. It shifts the perception of everything. The reason the Governors are the ones stopping evictions right now is that they know despite the "rules" saying the landlords should be able to evict, they would lose control of the situation rapidly if they allowed landlords and police the discretion to enforce evictions at their will. Also why Republican governors are less likely to do it because they implicitly trust those parties and, like the virus, aren't going to realize the storm they're brewing till it kicks them in the metaphorical face. The key for tenants is organizing so they can keep the leverage when the pandemic abates and if/when the economy recovers. Ensuring that after months of rent freezes and whatever they are collectively represented in the solution instead of getting shafted by pitting us against each other like usual. EDIT: I'd add that at least notionally (ymmv) most all states are still allowing eviction procedures for things that aren't paying rent.
You might be overthinking this. Evictions are very disruptive to the lifes of those evicted, often disabling them for some time from being productive members of society. As a society, you therefore create rules to only allow evictions in special cases. Not paying rent normally qualifies. If not being able to pay rent is a temporary condition caused by a temporary global crisis, it only makes sense to temporarily stop evictions that are based on this condition. This is politically neutral and just good governence.
|
On April 02 2020 17:10 Velr wrote:
Reads like a pretty standard letter to me, I would even put it on the nicer side? I don't see how it is especially outrageous or anything of the sort.
If you want a general change due to extraordinary events/corona it has to come from the goverment, not from each individual landlord.
Yeah, besides the "still due" being in caps and maybe the "this is very important" at the end, I don't find it strange either. I would assume that this letter came about after a few resident contacted them asking if april would be different because of corona.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ZkBs0qk.jpg)
