Sure. Those are options. Or limited ownership where one may own land they live on, but not additional land. Or make rates and taxes on additional land ownership higher potential rental profits. And then direct public funds into public housing, as well as fixing zoning laws to allow for denser housing.

Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.

That's not my argument.

I don't thing parasitism is healthy for society. That's why landlords shouldn't exist.

The fact that we don't have a choice was in response to your assertion that people choose to pay landlords.

[–] Flumsy@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say.

(?) No... It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.

About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else's housing? How would that make any difference?

I dont know anything about zoning laws but after looking it up it sounds pretty dumb, we dont have that here where I live (large city in central Europe).

[–] darq@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

(?) No… It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.

Then you should be opposed to landlords. Because rent-seeking extracts profit without producing value.

About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else’s housing? How would that make any difference?

Then housing is built for people to live in, not as an investment vehicle that is expected to generate profit. That brings down the price for everybody.

It also solves other social ills by drastically reducing homelessness.