noscere

In the end, wasn't the real shooter the friends we made along the way?

I have read your comment more than a few times, trying to respond in good faith, but I am uncertain so I am going to ask before responding:

Are you arguing from a position that housing IS a human right but not related at all to property rights, and the government needs to make housing affordable enough to everyone.

-OR-

Are you arguing from a position that housing is NOT a human right, BUT "the rent is too damn high" and the government needs to fix it?

There is a lot of what you have to say that I think I agree with, but I keep reading your comment and I am not sure.

I do see what you mean, but I am not sure arguing all the edge cases does anything but muddy the water. I mean I would argue that a hotel (even long term) is a hotel. Honestly, I would argue that the way housing is working right now, landlords who do short-term rentals are even worse than your standard landlord. Some cities are outlawing or heavily regulating them because they are so much more damaging (to society) than the more normal longterm landlord.

Deleted by creator

Sorry, in retrospect that was entirely too flippant and answer for a pretty good discussion and question. Deleted.

Most people who are arguing that being a landlord (as a class) are arguing that using property (ownership) as an investment (extracting value) is evil by it's nature. By owning the home and living there, there is already a categorical difference. Most (although not all) people arguing against rentier behavior have no issues with a person owning personal property.

I do see your what you are trying to say, it's akin to "slippery slope" falacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

If landlords are wrong, then logically wouldn't this other more reasonable and less exploitative thing be wrong too? (renting a room in a house you own and are living in) and no, not necessarily. Because it isn't the same thing.

Or maybe not. Maybe renting out a room in a house you live in is wrong too. Frankly, it would be simpler to do away with all private property rights, and live in a star trek style egalitarian utopia. I would vote for that.

As long as I get to smuggle in some Romulan Ale.

My two cents---which is worthless (thanks inflation!):

Not unless you are taking advantage of them. It really is going to depend on the specific situation. But if you are renting to housemates you're not really the landlord class most people are talking about.

Perhaps, but doesn't the US history of hobos, homeless, company towns, and housing crisis mean...regardless of how you feel about the various flavors of socialism/communism, that the criticism is correct even if you don't like the solution?

In order for there to be any rental property at all, someone has to own it and be the landlord.

I mean yes, but all that means is there shouldn't be rental properties

Unless they think it should be the state.

You mean ppl think that housing is a human right that should be provided for and administer by "We the People" for "We the People".

I didn’t think there is much of a logical argument for having no landlords whatsoever.

What other kind of Lords do you think there isn't a logical argument against?

Who owns a hotel? Isn’t that just another type of landlord?

Surely you understand the difference between a hotel and a home. They are prima facie not the same thing. Also, we call the owners of hotels...owners. The same thing we call owners of homes. Landlords are not the same thing.

Sure okay, but I am literally looking at the plan now. I don't see anything about unions, I don't see any medicare for all or single payer healthcare, I don't see anything about increasing minimum wage or indexing the minimum wage to inflation. I do see a lot of "helping more people get insurance", which is exactly the non-solution I was talking about.

I literally see a platform that tinkers around the edges, without making any fundamental changes. But you are here to refute my claims...so tell me/us (everyone else in this thread): What policies in the 80 page policy book I am currently looking at would have been a kitchen table game changer for me? I am willing to be wrong. I agree that the MSM has a profit motive to not inform the public about good democratic policy. So, you came here to make a point. Make your point.

If you didn't see the outreach that Harris was doing to centrist republicans, you weren't watching.

<edit, because I am still reading my way through the 82 pages.> There is literally nothing in this plan (that I have seen so far) that is a direct reply to a single topic in the comment you are referring to. Like, most of the problems aren't even acknowledged.

But most importantly, I watched all of Harris' speeches. Remember, I voted for her. I was excited to vote for the first black women president. I have too many friends who are gay or transgendered to not vote Democrat. But if she had a solution to these issues (as you have said) and the MSM wasn't telling me. SHE should have told me. I was there. I was listening.

And finally, while the initial lines of the post were about Harris not supporting M4A, which is empirically true and nothing in the document disputes that. The rest of the post was about the failures of the Democrats as a whole over the last 20 years and nothing in Harris' policy book could reasonably refute that.

Actually, those are pretty good answers. Good on you. Have a nice night.

I mean, I voted for every Dem I could. I voted as hard as I could. But I also think we should ALL be publicly outraged at how bad the two parties are.

I’m a CTO at a small medical supplier company and I work hard to make sure we’re ethical.

Good for you, tell me, what is the average wage/compensation for your company? What is the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay?

Do you know those numbers off the top of your head? Does anyone but the CFO know? If you don't know those numbers off the top of your head, you aren't really trying your best to be ethical.