Philosophy Now Forum

Anyone owning two residences while someone anyone else needs a place to live is a crime against humanity. Letting a complete stranger determine whether you have the right to have a place to live based on their own criteria for their own interests is a crime against humanity. Everything wrong with usary is double-wrong when applied to housing. Many people, including homeless people, would be perfectly able to afford their own living expenses based on their own efforts if the system wasn't rigged to keep them out of it because they're not wealthy.

If you've done much apartment hunting, you know that landlords typically lie to you about the process, ghost you, charge unreasonable background check fees (which are immorally charged to you in the first place), etc. Now if you find a place and don't have the same difficulties, what's the chance that they did those things to someone else but not you? It's impossible to find a landlord you know you can trust because the good ones are only seen for long enough to find the first person who qualifies, as the law requires, while the rest look until they find someone they like, because there's no oversight and they can do whatever they want, including stealing background check fees or having illegal requirements you'll never know about.

When the government owns everything, everyone rents, and the government is evil.

Keyword: BlackRock

Those without means can resent those with means. That's not a surprise. But getting those without means to support the system whereby those with means acquired it, because they believe it will work for them is genius marketing.

a society based on envy must be beautiful

seven deadly...

-Imp

Oh nice. This one i consider to be one of the fundamental tenants of anarchism. The very first deal breaker between the citizen and the state.

You are born into the world without being asked. In this world, if u don't pay somebody to live in a building, u become homeless. And yet, it is illegal to live on government property, so u go to jail.

Add to this a tasty caveat: you'd even be willing to pay rent but landlords won't rent to u becuz you've been convicted of crimes u didn't commit.

Fun fact: the last time I paid rent, it was to stay in a jail that I was wrongfully put in. Three dollars a day I was charged.

[quote=promethean75 post_id=675069 time=1698128673 user_id=16524]
Oh nice. This one i consider to be one of the fundamental tenants of anarchism. The very first deal breaker between the citizen and the state.

You are born into the world without being asked. In this world, if u don't pay somebody to live in a building, u become homeless. And yet, it is illegal to live on government property, so u go to jail.

Add to this a tasty caveat: you'd even be willing to pay rent but landlords won't rent to u becuz you've been convicted of crimes u didn't commit.
[/quote]

All that and so much more. A stranger who knows and cares nothing about your needs gets to decide whether you're allowed to meet them based on their own personal wants. The skills, nvm luck, necessary to acquire money has literally nothing to do with the skills required to use wealth ethically. Keeping anything for yourself while someone else needs it and you don't is inherently immoral. And on and on.

[quote=promethean75 post_id=675071 time=1698128998 user_id=16524]
Fun fact: the last time I paid rent, it was to stay in a jail that I was wrongfully put in. Three dollars a day I was charged.
[/quote]

And when/if you're finally adjudicated not guilty, which was supposed to have been assumed by default, no apology, no compensation, no change to the system to keep it from happening to the next person later that day.

Over 80% of humans are evil, there is no need for change

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 7:37 pm Over 80% of humans are evil, there is no need for change

Actually (using your data), 80% of people are average (or normal), about 10% are evil and about another 10% are good. Since "evil" is a relative descriptor not an absolute one.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 10:39 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 7:37 pm Over 80% of humans are evil, there is no need for change

Actually (using your data), 80% of people are average (or normal), about 10% are evil and about another 10% are good. Since "evil" is a relative descriptor not an absolute one.

Actually you missed the whole point that if say we have 100 people and 50 of them are murderer-torturers and 50 only torture their victims but then let them go, that doesn't mean the latter 50 are "good" or "good enough". Or if you think they are then we disagree.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 4:57 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 10:39 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 7:37 pm Over 80% of humans are evil, there is no need for change

Actually (using your data), 80% of people are average (or normal), about 10% are evil and about another 10% are good. Since "evil" is a relative descriptor not an absolute one.

Actually you missed the whole point that if say we have 100 people and 50 of them are murderer-torturers and 50 only torture their victims but then let them go, that doesn't mean the latter 50 are "good" or "good enough". Or if you think they are then we disagree.

Ah, but you said "of humans", not a subset of humans (thus your 100 people example is moot). If 80% of ALL PEOPLE do criminal acts, then by definition, doing criminal acts is normal, so those who do heinous criminal acts are evil and those who don't do criminal acts are good.

If you don't believe me take statistics.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 6:42 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 4:57 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 10:39 pm

Actually (using your data), 80% of people are average (or normal), about 10% are evil and about another 10% are good. Since "evil" is a relative descriptor not an absolute one.

Actually you missed the whole point that if say we have 100 people and 50 of them are murderer-torturers and 50 only torture their victims but then let them go, that doesn't mean the latter 50 are "good" or "good enough". Or if you think they are then we disagree.

Ah, but you said "of humans", not a subset of humans (thus your 100 people example is moot). If 80% of ALL PEOPLE do criminal acts, then by definition, doing criminal acts is normal, so those who do heinous criminal acts are evil and those who don't do criminal acts are good.

If you don't believe me take statistics.

I didn't say 80%+ do criminal acts, I said 80%+ are evil. Yes being evil is normal and being good is a pathology, a mental disorder.

But your version of moral relativism is morally broken imo. I mean it's independent of morality. So what I wrote in the above example stands.

"All that and so much more. A stranger who knows and cares nothing about your needs gets to decide whether you're allowed to meet them based on their own personal wants."

Not sure what that means, but i am sure that's not part of the problem. Or it's a trivial problem if it is one.

"The skills, nvm luck, necessary to acquire money has literally nothing to do with the skills required to use wealth ethically."

U can't tell somebody how they should use their money.

"Keeping anything for yourself while someone else needs it and you don't is inherently immoral."

No, again.

The problem here, the only problem here, is this. Capitalists turn property into an investment, monopolize the housing market and artificially inflate the costs of it.

This has nothing to do with 'ethical' this or 'moral' that.

Second. If u are unable or unwilling to play this game with the capitalist parasites, u can very easily be criminalized as a result. To say again, u are forced to pay rent or buy a house becuz the government owns all other property (that isn't private), and it's illegal to be on it.