• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I’m confused. Are you saying people shouldn’t have to pay for housing? For food? For electricity?

    They’re providing/enabling the human right. Why do you describe it as if they were making money off of necessity without trade and giving?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      96 months ago

      I’m saying landlords are parasites and there’s no way to excuse what they do as a good thing or necessary.

    • @phobiac
      link
      English
      66 months ago

      Yes. I would say people shouldn’t have to pay for the basic necessities required to live. Why should anyone live with the threat of homelessness and starvation?

      • @meliaesc
        link
        English
        36 months ago

        Because it takes time and resources and create and maintain housing… who will pay for it, and why is it the landlord’s fault instead of whoever isn’t taking that responsibility (government???).

    • Transporter Room 3
      link
      fedilink
      English
      66 months ago

      “they’re providing/enabling…”

      WOAH there, pardner.

      They don’t PROVIDE anything.

      They hoard a finite resource for financial gain. Full stop.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        They do though? They provide a place to live that you can move into way faster than you can if you were buying it. They cover the maintenance costs, and some even provide properties that are fully furnished.

        I agree that they hoard properties for financial gain but they do provide something.

    • @masquenox
      link
      English
      36 months ago

      They’re providing/enabling the human right.

      You are literally saying that your human rights should be privately owned by somebody else. If that’s the case, why even bother with human rights?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        You gotta separate the concept of a right from fulfilling them.

        You can have a human right. But that alone does not answer how it is fulfilled.

        The right is not owned. It can’t be.

        • @masquenox
          link
          English
          06 months ago

          You gotta separate the concept of a right from fulfilling them.

          Says who?

          If a human right only exists on paper it’s not a right - it’s a buzzterm for political racketeers to throw around. Fulfilling a “bill of rights” is the core part of the (so-called) “social contract” between the liberal state and it’s subjects - if it’s merely “fulfilling” those by pretending they exist, the existence of the liberal state - and liberalism itself - becomes irrelevant and unjustifiable to the subjects.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            26 months ago

            If a human right only exists on paper it’s not a right

            A right is a right. It doesn’t just disappear.

            • @masquenox
              link
              English
              -16 months ago

              Fantasizing about rights doesn’t make them real - or even relevant.

    • Queue
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16 months ago

      My landlord didn’t pay for nor make the land my place is on. Nor the place I reside on. Yet he jacks up the rent every march as soon as he can, as much as he legally can.

      My landlord doesn’t clean the lots, doesn’t clean the public bathrooms, doesn’t do anything but come on by to complain about the lots he doesn’t improve.

      How he is providing anything but less money in my family’s bank account, and an headache to everyone he complains to?