You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Property Sucks
All those questions evolve around the idea of private property. You just shouldn't be able to own a house you don't use personally. It's part of the game right now, so no offense given ;-)
But in a free world, houses would belong to those living in them. And you wouldn't pay a mortgage.
Glad to hear no offense given. :)
Does that mean an authority would have to exist to prevent people from doing so or would this just be a culturally reinforced social norm (i.e no violence or coercion needed to enforce it)?
So is everything purchased with cash or are we imagining the abolishment of money as well? If so, I have trouble figuring out a mechanism for determining value within the chaos that is human existence. Scarcity appears to me to require a mechanism for distribution beyond whoever is willing to use violence more than the other guy. Economic freedom through voluntary exchange of value seems to be the best thing we have going so far for increasing human well-being in these situations.
What about those who can not afford to build a home themselves or purchase it directly with cash (or some other equivalent if we're talking about a gift-based economy or some similar setup)? Do they just... go homeless? I get how problematic slumlords can be, but I also think a landlord can provide a valuable service (again, by taking on risk which I believe has value -- I'd love your thoughts on that) to someone who couldn't otherwise afford a long term commitment to a single geography or the risks involved with home ownership.
Maybe I'm completely indoctrinated with capitalist thinking because of my pro-capitalist, Western upbringing... I'm open to that, but I'd still want to see more solutions for improving human well-being if I'm going to throw out private property (and, potentially, money with it).
You miss a huge key element here Luke. No one would pay a mortgage or rent without a government telling them they couldn't just build their own home on any unoccupied peice of land...except maybe in cities but even then some would move out to build free, leaving a huge volume of empty houses, and driving rental value down so low as to not be worth keeping rentals
It isn't the free market (whether it's called capitalism or laissez faire) that's the problem...it's when what should be a limited government serving its constituents interferes through coercion and fraud, to skew the results to the benefit of some special interests and the loss of those not so favored, that should be a focus of attention.
For instance, what are the justifications/ramifications of "the state" taking a share of every transaction in the form of sales tax in the transfer of purely digital "products" over the Internet, the bandwidth or use of which has already been paid for (including tax) by the seller and buyer?
Also the "funds" used for such transactions being usually purely digital as well, what gives "the state" (those claiming to act on behalf of everyone) a right to lay claim to such otherwise private property (including personal time/effort invested) without full and fair compensation for the confiscation?
If no authority existed, you wouldn't be able to keep steady control over (several) houses you don't live in. The social norm would be the definition of self defense, is someone moving into a house you don't personally use threatening you enough to exercise physical force over him? And of course there needs to be an agreement about the difference between abandoning and leaving for a while.
When you plan to move out of your awesome house, and someone else wants to live in there, you can of course ask for an exchange. Money is a good tool for that. And if he doesn't have the cash, you're free to make a deal with him, this involves third parties and mortgages.
No, voluntary exchange is great. But you wouldn't take a mortgage for a house you wouldn't use, because there would be no authority helping you to throw out potential squatters :P
The services a good landlord provides can probably, with minor modifications, be a business of their own.