131d
@no1marauder saidThen who would be the one to 'allow' or to 'not allow' this scenario? I said Kamal since she is a socialist, who would be the one to dictate that to me. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's take Kamala out of the discussion. SOMEONE tells me I cannot own and rent rental property. Whew.
No, saying a human being can only live somewhere IF he pays money to another human being is "authoritarian".
But again, it has nothing to do with Kamala Harris.
Now, justify someone telling me I cannot own and rent rental property. We can even set aside the 'socialism references.
So no Kamala, and no socialism. Tell your loyal readers about not being 'allowed' to have and rent rentaly property. Sorry my question was so complicated
131d
@AverageJoe1 saidYou've got it backwards; it is the State that allows you to own and rent private property and it enforces that by men with guns.
Then who would be the one to 'allow' or to 'not allow' this scenario? I said Kamal since she is a socialist, who would be the one to dictate that to me. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's take Kamala out of the discussion. SOMEONE tells me I cannot own and rent rental property. Whew.
Now, justify someone telling me I cannot own and rent rental property. We ...[text shortened]... s about not being 'allowed' to have and rent rentaly property. Sorry my question was so complicated
In the Natural State, people could roam and make a living without interference from others claiming "NO, I own that piece of land and you cannot use it".
When others started claiming property they could not personally use and got others to help them use force to enforce that usurpation was when Man's natural liberty was lost.
131d
@no1marauder said"When others started claiming property...." Why get into the weeds, man. We do not seek a history lesson. Like, Cave men had diff property concepts than those that exist now.
You've got it backwards; it is the State that allows you to own and rent private property and it enforces that by men with guns.
In the Natural State, people could roam and make a living without interference from others claiming "NO, I own that piece of land and you cannot use it".
When others started claiming property they could not personally use and got others to help them use force to enforce that usurpation was when Man's natural liberty was lost.
So ,,,,Today.
Today, what do you suggest would be the ideal process and end result of the ownership (or non-ownership) of real property?
And yes, i agree that literally speaking, the State protects our rights to own and rent property today. With guns if necessary. But could you set aside this Natural State thingy, I am mentioning today, our present society. We could become a socialist State in November. We. need to school ourselves.
131d
@AverageJoe1
If Trump wins it will for sure not be a socialist country, it will be a full on dictatorship,
remember where he said in four years you won't NEED to vote, I bet you never even TRIED to suss out what that meant.
131d
@sonhouse saidHe meant, to his christian voters, that they should vote now to get him elected and that when he fixes everything, they will not need to vote again.
@AverageJoe1
If Trump wins it will for sure not be a socialist country, it will be a full on dictatorship,
remember where he said in four years you won't NEED to vote, I bet you never even TRIED to suss out what that meant.
131d
@AverageJoe1
Yeah, because he will 'Fix" it so NOBODY votes again. THAT is a dictatorship. With the biggest dick in the house as DICKtator.
131d
@AverageJoe1 saidTell me what happens to homes people are evicted from because of poverty?
I have the answer for you, to that, but it is amazing how you libs will ignore a simple one-line question and submit another question. If we become socialist tomorrow, what would happen to all the homes owned by individuals?
Please man, don't be a Sonhouse.
Anyhoo… nothing happens to homes people are living in, if the US becomes socialist tomorrow.
Banks would no longer have the power to evict people. And if for some reason a person has to be evicted, there will be another house for them to go to. In socialism, you don’t throw people out on the street.
That person X is living in a mansion is of no direct concern to a socialist. The concern is with people who need a house. That is what gets solved.
In times of disaster, like during WW2, large houses were asked to take in city children to protect them from bombing. And that’s under capitalism. I can see the same occuring on a temporary basis within a socialist society.
Again with the nothing-burgers.
What I presume you are asking is: if there is a communist revolution, what happens to my house?
And that would depend on the form of revolution. Generally speaking, communist aims are not to the throw people out of their homes, but to make sure everyone has a home to live in.
Everybody has meaningful employment, everyone has healthcare… and what probably irks your brain: profit isn’t the driving motive, community is.
130d
@shavixmir saidNo where in this 'answer' do you say what happens to the house or houses. I read all that for nothing.
Tell me what happens to homes people are evicted from because of poverty?
Anyhoo… nothing happens to homes people are living in, if the US becomes socialist tomorrow.
Banks would no longer have the power to evict people. And if for some reason a person has to be evicted, there will be another house for them to go to. In socialism, you don’t throw people out on the str ...[text shortened]... ne has healthcare… and what probably irks your brain: profit isn’t the driving motive, community is.
130d
@AverageJoe1 saidThe most obvious solution in a socialist society is that the houses would now be owned by those who live in them. Sorry, if you would actually have to work to earn money rather than live on exploiting others.
No where in this 'answer' do you say what happens to the house or houses. I read all that for nothing.
Of course as mentioned numerous times, Kamala Harris isn't a socialist and that's not going to happen in the US (be nice though).
130d
@no1marauder saidLet me get this straight. You say that No Person Can Own and Rent Out Houses. I get that. So the ones that are owned by Joe Blow today, what happens to them? Who owns them? The people who end up owning them would be actual homeowners. How would they acquire them. Would Joe Blow be forced to sell the houses to them? Forced by whom? The government? The Socialist Government??? Please answer this question.
The most obvious solution in a socialist society is that the houses would now be owned by those who live in them. Sorry, if you would actually have to work to earn money rather than live on exploiting others.
Of course as mentioned numerous times, Kamala Harris isn't a socialist and that's not going to happen in the US (be nice though).
There would be no house for a 'less-monied' person to live in, like the paying of rent today. Would you cut to the chase, please, and tell us that (I assume) the government would own them??
130d
@AverageJoe1 saidI just told you; the people who live there would own them.
Let me get this straight. You say that No Person Can Own and Rent Out Houses. I get that. So the ones that are owned by Joe Blow today, what happens to them? Who owns them? The people who end up owning them would be actual homeowners. How would they acquire them. Would Joe Blow be forced to sell the houses to them? Forced by whom? The government? The Socialist Gove ...[text shortened]... ay. Would you cut to the chase, please, and tell us that (I assume) the government would own them??
No, Joe Blow wouldn't get more money by "selling" them. Whatever authority existed in society would just say he doesn't own them anymore and the people who live in them do (private property - abolished; personal property - OK).
Tough for Joe; he'd actually have to work for a living. Of course in a socialist society there'd be useful work for everybody since you having a job wouldn't be dependent on someone else making a profit off it.
130d
@no1marauder saidMy my, evades the question. Those who live there own them. How do they acquire ownership, title, fee simple, to them.? One question at a time.
I just told you; the people who live there would own them.
No, Joe Blow wouldn't get more money by "selling" them. Whatever authority existed in society would just say he doesn't own them anymore and the people who live in them do (private property - abolished; personal property - OK).
Tough for Joe; he'd actually have to work for a living. Of course in a socialist ...[text shortened]... k for everybody since you having a job wouldn't be dependent on someone else making a profit off it.
130d
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidI just told you AGAIN.
My my, evades the question. Those who live there own them. How do they acquire ownership, title, fee simple, to them.? One question at a time.
The same way Joe did; by the rules of society saying so.
130d
@no1marauder saidThat is not an answer. . If I own a lot of rental properties, you are saying I will lose ownership at the behest of 'the rules of society'. Can you tell me and Suzianne and everyone in between what that means?
I just told you AGAIN.
The same way Joe did; by the rules of society saying so.
This is a fair question.
130d
@AverageJoe1 saidI already did multiple times.
That is not an answer. . If I own a lot of rental properties, you are saying I will lose ownership at the behest of 'the rules of society'. Can you tell me and Suzianne and everyone in between what that means?
This is a fair question.
The rules of society now allow persons to own private property in land and to exploit others by charging them rent to live there. A socialist society would not.
What part of that is unclear?