Mercer

Found_it_on_the_r_dogecoin_thought_it_would_fit_this_sub_perfectly...-w5xaciyet4k71.mp4

SpicyAF™

Maj_Toure_-_Somebody_get_her_commanding_officer_on_the_line_before_she_have_folks_believing_most_soldiers_think_like_her_goofy_ass._And_the_ones_that_do_Fuck_around_and_find_out._Yet_ANOTHER_reason_why_BlackGunsMatter.-14313192213345894 (1).mp4 Imagine just taking a major L from illiterate goat fuckers, then talking shit about trying to step here.

https_-_t.co_cLeo9E6Nu1-1431450723548532737.mp4

It took a lot of effort by both this threads author, and myself to turn this into an fairly engaging formal conversation. If you can muster together enough brain power to articulate a position, counter argument, etc. please contribute. If not please don't fuck up the thread.

Only the religion of state claims society would end in a corporate plutocracy if not held in check by state power. Think about it, that's never even come close to ever happening ever, in all of human history. This imaginary threat of an inevitable authoritarian boogieman, was created by the very people advocating for a real authoritarian threat. A silly notion. Throughout history the wealthy, the merchants, and the non-monarchal elite have always been subservient to monarchs, and the state. It's just not cost effective for a business to engage in warfare, or maintaining a monopoly on violence. The expense depletes any potential profit maintaining an authoritarian system can create. Centralized, authoritarian power is only profitable for monarchs, demagogues, and political/religious organizations that are able to make a claim of shared identity. In short people will never subjugate willingly subjugate to an authority that isn't tied to their identity, or fight and die loyally for an organization simply for paycheck. I'd say the chances of the wealthy taking over a large populations without claiming the legitimacy of statehood, and willing fanatical subjects is impossible from a cost vs benefit analysis perspective. With wealth, one can buy almost anything out there, but loyalty you have to either earn legitimately, or earn through an elaborate ruse, like state run schools grooming their subjects into believing, without question, they're protecting you from an imaginary boogieman. Imagine the very organization that creates, and maintains monopolies (the state) actually protects it's citizens from monopolies, and authoritarianism.

SLOW_LIFE_Pierre_Brault_2020-hithegrdppj71.mp4

Dinosaur pussy, petrified after it was left dripping during the Jurassic era.

The black flag indicates zero loyalty to a corrupt empire, or any nation, and isn't an endorsement of Socialism, or Communism. My unwillingness to acknowledge that a little bit of theft is OK is the same thing as a little bit of rape not being cool, or a little bit of assault, etc. It's not like I want people out on the street, I just know the alternative because of the unintentional consequences is worse. It's not just the morality of theft/breach of contract. I can understand on the surface, eviction seems like a cruel matter of greed and we want to prevent it right?. The reality is if you look more than a single layer deep, a healthy, affordable housing market (at least for people willing to pay rent) evictions are necessary. Stopping evictions may benefit a small minority of people very short term, but the harm this would cause everyone else in the housing market big picture ultimately makes it not only immoral, it causes more harm than the problem it intends to correct. Pretty sure I've gone over both the moral shortcomings, and how stopping the consequences for non-payment are harmful on a practical level. That said, I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm just unable to concede designing society to benefit the few, at the expense of the majority is a smart move. Lving in West Germany during the 80's, and witnessing first hand the difference in standards of living between East & West, and my close ties to Argentina make me passionately anti "left" on the economic scale, and that's what makes me anti-government.

Correct, this is what you condone here by saying the non-paying tenant shouldn't be evicted. Incorrect. By, condoning/prolonging the theft right? This comes across as purely disingenuous, there are no "protection" for landlords. Do they get to kick out tennants, and continue charging them rent? That's a given, I value self reliance, where you find virtue in taking away from one party and giving to another. Everyone condoning immoral behavior uses this as a cop out. Somehow, there's always an excuse where the rules of morality aren't applied consistently, one person to the next. You think there's a difference (morally) between a tenant not paying rent, and continuing to occupy the landlords property, and a landlord continuing to collect rent, while not providing the property they agreed to. Embracing inequality under the law isn't morally subjective. Class war, (like most war) is a moral shortcoming, not a subjective take on morality. If you feel this way, how can one person decide if another person is acting immorally or not? Perhaps OJ felt Nicole wronged him, perhaps a child abuser was abused themselves, and felt it was morally OK so they continue that practice on others. The fact that people have ideological differences doesn't mean there's no such thing as morality. It's not causing it. The tenants failure to uphold their end of the agreement is the cause, eviction, and any loss of prosperity is a result. Without the cause (breach of contract), there is no eviction. You're not saying both parties here can breach contract to offset their personal financial woes, you're saying only one party here needs to be held to their word. Mine doesn't favor the rights of one group over another because it's holding both parties responsible to uphold their agreement. Materiel goods and services aren't human rights. You keep saying this, but still fail to recognize the property rights of landlords. Irrelevant, and also wrong. You start forcibly taxing people to hand out free rent to landlords there's just as much potential for a deadbeat landlord to game that system as well. This is a terrible idea and completely unnecessary. Whats wrong with every American taxpayer keeping an additional 5-10% more of their income for as long as the bullshit war will need to be payed off. Imagine the improvement to out economy if our economy was just 5-10% more profitable to operate in. You don't have to waste money forcibly seized from people. No amount of mental gymnastics justifies removing the incentives for individuals to meet their consensual/contractual obligations.

This "gray area" you're referring to is an ideological moral shortcoming, condoning, and assisting one party in their theft from another. Your position doesn't have any of the virtue associated with "Hey, whether we all agree to, or not, we're all pitching in together to help". At least in that situation the person declaring so, is supporting the effort themselves. This is literally watching someone get robbed, and not letting them stop it because you favor one group, over another most likely based on class identity. A person who respects the rights of others shouldn't be targeted because of their chosen profession, or business. Especially when it's demonstrable they provide a very important function in society. Where do your whims end? Who else deserves their property rights violated? That's a pretty easy question for me to answer, because I believe there is a such thing as right, and wrong. I don't have a wishy washy moral compass like right wingers when they want to violate the rights of the poor, immigrants, etc. or left wingers when they want to make excuses, then violate the rights of anyone who's done well for themselves like landlords. I just don't see being absolutely against things like murder, rape, theft etc. as being "absolute" or "extremist". Outside of self defense, you shouldn't harm/murder another person; Outside of consent, you shouldn't engage in sex acts; and outside of restitution for crime/damages you don't take what belongs to another person. Crossing moral boundaries in a "the ends justify the means" causes more harm big picture (I've explained how in this situation in previous posts) than it helps. This is how most intentional, and unintentional large scale man made losses of life, and prosperity start. Favoring the rights, and sovereignty of one group of individuals, and removing the rights of another group.

Yea, rents have always been going up. Like since forever if you're trying to read the market here. The population is always increasing leading to more demand, and inflation doesn't help either. I'm really not sure how to respond to be honest. I've noticed you have a built in economic cognitive dissonance, makes learning simple concepts impossible for you. Instead of running the math using logic, you're factoring in emotional responses and it it derails any attempt for you to calculate past 1 or 2 steps. No matter what, for you eviction is "wrong" and that's it. Not trying to diss because even this is simple stuff here, most people share your same shortcoming, not understanding why rents are so high in places like NY/SF where policy interferes heavily in the market.

People who are unable to pay rent get evicted. Some end up with family, homeless, couch surfing, etc. Meanwhile, the disincentives a potential real estate investor faces are reduced, making real estate investing less risky, and more profitable. This profit attracts more investment, which in turn creates more actual housing, reducing the housing costs for people actually contributing.

Unemployment benefits are about to run out for a large number of Coloradans, and ICU's are filling up. These winter should be interesting.