Mercer
-
Posts
21,290 -
Joined
-
Days Won
237
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Everything posted by Mercer
-
I'm ahead of the game apparently. Boycotting Nabisco products for years. Poison.
-
Saw this and thought of this thread. lol
-
If you argue against evictions for non-payment, you’re arguing against private property rights.Either the person who owns the property is allowed to enforce contracts regarding its use, or they’re not. There’s no loopholes around this.
-
There's no in between, amendment, or slight tweak to something as absolute, and black/white as property rights. Either the owner has rights to the property, or they don't. If landlords can't enforce their property rights, well then, good luck getting anyone to build/invest in rental property moving forward. No level of economic illiteracy should prevent a Socialist from putting these simple cause/effect together. It's like 1 + 1 first grader shit. Why do you think people build/maintain rental property? Taking things a step further, what do you think happens to renters, the people "cancel rent" is supposedly helping when there's less availiable housing as a result of rental property being a poor investment? It takes a massive amount of cognitive dissonance to deny "amending" private property rights for landlords/tenants wouldn't ultimately destroy the market. This is very basic stuff, unfortunately many in this generation have been propagandized to the point where they can't understand a very basic economic concept, like property rights, contracts, etc. actually work.
-
Flashback to me negapropping your big pussy ass in The year Two Thousand Nine. LGHDTV+_Unicorn_-_WTAF-1428527324627038210.mp4
-
Must read for any Ancap.
-
One wrong doesn't excuse another. A landlord has no control, or liability for their tenants financial, or government infringement problems. Poorly crafted? We're enjoying the highest standard of living on earth, ever. World poverty at an all time low, even the poor here have it good if compared to others, or the past. It might come up short measured against a the perfect utopia people who want to abolish private property might promise. But we all know how that goes, a long list of Socialist utopias turned economic disasters, in fact, these are the only places where people starve on a regular basis these days. Your (abolish property rights) approach has already been tried, and failed miserably. An evolutionary dead end. In my opinion, us trying to shape this evolution in an intentional manner is destructive. Free societies use the full planning, and brainpower of the entire masses to improve society through prosperity. Centralizing decision making by not respecting, or abolishing private property rights it the economic equivalent of square peg for a round hole maximization. Free markets are superior to centrally planned ones in this regard, and the economic data supporting this is undeniable. This isn't true, people have successfully hermitted themselves for ages. Humans are only forced to live within their biological needs by nature, and nature is a whore. This animosity towards the "system" is masked disdain for the realities of inequity once one transcends poverty. You could even live as an tribes-person in some areas of the world if you can find a tribe to accept you, if not, it's not "the systems" fault" you're forced to live in it. Those same tribespeople often make the move into favelas, and slums where one can enjoy a better life than in the jungle, perhaps learn to read, and have a chance of their kids joining the 2nd world, and so on up to the first world, up to the wealthy amongst the first world. You for sure aren't being forced to be part of this system, you're lucky to be part of it and don't appreciate it. A successful parasite doesn't kill it's host, it establishes a system of taxation. Agreed, however the line between a parasitic, and a symbiotic relationship between parties is the consent, and mutual benefit of both parties involved. I've thought about this. Every non-consensual relationship I have involves the government on some level, and their threat of force. All "capitalist", or voluntary interactions I have are a decision that only ends with me not being able to meet my biological needs at worst. Many of them may not be ideal, but they're better than the alternative choices I have. Voluntary choices like jobs, and leases aren't made under duress, or a fear of intentional harm realistically, unless my choices violate the rights (including property) of other individuals.
-
We're each individually responsible for the needs of ourselves, our families, and those we choose to take care of. Given we're able to provide for our own basic needs, we're also free to provide for ourselves beyond them. Outside of a parent child relationship, we have no right to a non-consensual parasitic relationship with another human being. Not that we all shouldn't feel entitled to some help (consensual) in a good society, but that help has no meaning if it's non-consensual. For example: a landlord supporting deadbeat tenants, against their will is a non-consensual parasitic arrangement. The Landlord's financial life blood is slowly drained, and in some cases it can be fatal, actually bankrupting the host. This arrangement violates logical consistency in two ways. 1. It invalidates one party's basic rights to own private property. 2. It invalidates one's obligation to a contractual arrangement, in some cases excusing blatant fraud. If this famine minded approach to property rights is taken to it's logical conclusion: Securing adequate housing would be next to impossible for anyone unable to buy, or build their own. Do you know what is favela?
-
The assumption is yes, all rent is paid willfully, and by people who can afford it, or they wouldn't pay it. Why would it make a difference where they got the money to pay rent? Hopefully not because having deadbeats can be a bummer. The type of business you're in like providing housing for example, doesn't imply some sort of different moral obligation where you give up the rights to your property, and have to share their property with others. Should shopkeepers allow shoplifting? Mechanics not charge for their services? Does one's word when signing a contract mean nothing? I'm not sure why anyone would think it's OK to target an individual, or profession and make them financially responsible for another individual. I mean I could understand thinking everyone should pitch in to cover housing for those who need it, but this "It's morally wrong to evict" assertion makes no sense. Imagine how hard it would be to find housing if people were just allowed to steal from anyone who invested in it. It's like some economically challenged fantasy where people don't have rights to their own property.
-
That's useful info. I plan on building a series of ponds, and lakes and this information will make me look more credible with the contractors who will still probably rip me off.
-
-
