>>8024>The person who did create the resource (house) transferred all those rights to the buyer in exchange for money. That's what buying is.Except that the investment of a landlord is primarily in the land. The location value isn't just generated by the house, but by the work of the community. A landlord buys a lot, or a building, in a city because there is already value in the city, because people have lived there, have built things, have labored, and that has created a place where people want to go. The landlord's role is to then come in and mooch up that value, and, often times, to strangle it.
>If you don't believe in property rights then we can settle this right now. Tell me your address and I will come over and take your stuff. Don't you dare call the police to enforce a "monopoly" for you.Even Marxists differentiate between private property and personal property. Occupation and use is a crucial determining factor here, and it's also the principal which Marxists use to determine who should own a factory.
If you come over and try to take anything I need to live, I won't need to call the police, but you will. However, if you were to try to take my factory, or emerald mine, or anything like that which I only own on paper, from a distance, to derive absentee profit from, on account of you being a factory worker or a miner or someone else laboring on site for my profit,
then the situation would be quite different. Without the police, I could hardly prevent those who produce the wealth I collect from taking ownership of that wealth and refusing to hand it over to me. It's much easier to say a man is the natural owner of his home than it is to say he is the owner of someone else's home, or of someone else's place of work, or of someone else's labor, yet when it comes time to determine who is in ownership of these things, who holds all the cards, the state always sides with the man who owns another's home on paper over the man whose home is the place he lives in real life, and the state seeks to reinforce the extortion of those with a great deal of unearned wealth over those who work for all they have and still have very little.
>What are you rambling about? Nobody is forcing you to give any money to landlords.This is a childish statement to make when the result of this fantasy reasoning is rising homelessness in spite of a surplus of homes.
>Houses don't just appear in nature. Somebody did work to build a house. That act of mixing one's labor with an unowned natural resource is what creates property. As the owner of that property the homesteader can do what he wants including rent it out or sell it to somebody who rents it out.Most land speculators, and especially those who own the most properties, are not homesteaders.
>I'd prefer it if you addressed the points I actually wrote. If you think I'm wrong then explain why. If you don't then I assume it's because you can't.The problem you're talking about predates every single one of the grievances you list, which are, frankly, mostly just used to obfuscate the pre-existing problem and distract people from the very obvious way they're being ripped off. Blaming
the government singularly isn't adequate when much of what
the government does is in concert with the very same extractive rentseeking interests which were already a problem 250 years ago. The separation of the corporate state and the political state is mostly an illusion, and has been for some time.
As for migrants, they're a convenient scapegoat. The US has been deporting record numbers for years. Net migration is down, people are leaving the US, and yet, if I walk downtown, there are still, for some reason, rows of empty buildings. There are still empty apartments, and despite the surplus, this is all very expensive. Businesses are still shutting down because the complexes their storefronts are in are sold to "new management" who are jacking the rents way up for everybody. Some people want me to blame Mexicans!
And none of this is to say that mass migration isn't a problem, and in that area the government really
is at fault - the sanctions on Venezuela, attacks on West Asia, sanctions on people all over the world, have demonstrably created waves of misery and migration. Then many come in and, for some reason, are hired by our noble business professionals to undercut American labor, and to exploit the desperation of those who our government's policies of drug-running, war, and economic assault displace. It's presumably only just a convenient coincidence that this same government, to punish violations of labor law, disproportionately pursues migrant workers rather than the wealthy interests who use these workers to skirt labor law, and increasingly does so in gratuitous spectacles as though the real aim is just to frighten migrant workers into complacency rather than to actually deal with any perceived numbers problem.
>I'm not a neoliberal. If that's what you think after sincerely reading my post then you have serve learning difficulties.Still, you share their delusion on this one.
>You do not have a "right" to other people's labor.Welcome, Comrade! ☭☭☭
>Most land is "owned" by the government. If they released it all for public use you would rush out and build your own house? Is that how you think you're going to solve the housing shortage?There literally are tons of empty houses right now. Tons of empty apartments, too. No occupants. No use. Just owners who don't live there and don't store stuff there and don't want anyone else to live there.
>Adam Smith lived under a monarchy. The man with the biggest sword declared himself king and decided all the land belonged to him.This hasn't actually changed.
>Adam Smith got a lot of things wrong, if the reason you're quoting him is because you think he is the capitalist version of Marx or something then you are wasting your time.I'm quoting Smith because his analysis had an actual basis in what material reality
was and
is, and not just what he
wanted it to be. A problem which neoliberalism constantly runs into is that its ideal is unpalatable… even when you have writers who understand economics, the rollout of neoliberalism, Austrianism, etc. will never go well because it isn't actually a thing most people want when they see it in real life. It's a thing the capitalist class want because they've convinced themselves, wrongly, that it can play out in real life the way it does on paper; which isn't actually how it works out, or,
if it does, that's still just going to be something which screws most people over.
If it doesn't then you just get collapse. Marx's predictions, frankly, had a lot of similar issues, and he tended to be much more into vague, presumptive stuff than Engels was; at their best, they were very good at describing things as they exist and existed, much better historians than they were prophets. In the case of neoliberalism, we get bad historians
and bad prophets who occasionally can at least make concessions, as academics, that their end goal can't be reached by merely sacrificing a chicken to the free market God. The Austrians, the neoliberals have the worst tendency of early Marxists to get ahead of themselves in their projections, but in the service of a stupid, revisionist take on liberal economics. So I think Smith had a better grip.
>You said privatization was coined in the 1930s. The first quote shows that it was coined earlier.The first quote is about a direct translation of a German speech which uses
ing rather than
ation, and the speech is referring to a thing that didn't actually happen. Usage of
"privatization" as an English word, in the English press, being used by English authors to describe an actual policy which was being done, seems to have started with Hitler. If you want I'll concede that Hitler's actions merely gave the term a definition and popularized it with common use in the English-speaking press, and that it or a related word was quoted from German in the English-speaking press one time a decade earlier.
>You said Hitler's policy was to privatize industries. The second quote shows that he only privatized one thing on one occasion due to an emergency.It doesn't say that. That quote says that the term was discussed in the context of privatizing the banks, but the quote I included later elaborates that the Nazis privatized major industries in many sectors, considerably more than Lenin ever did.
>Your claim is that nazis, one of the most ruthlessly authoritarian governments to ever exist, gave up control of private industry.The trick is getting people to think that removing the organs of the state from the political gov't is "giving up control." No, the Nazis, the class interests which they represented, were still in control. If the corporate state and the military state had actually been at odds, then it wouldn't have worked. It's similar to the policy which the Nazis had on guns; for Jews and communists, they were illegal. For good Nazi Aryans, they were encouraged and the laws were loosened from what they had been in Weimar Germany. The German capitalists were largely willing collaborators, and they were Hitler's class allies, and German workers were brought in to do their bidding with race/nation legal privileges which elevated a good Nazi over others whether or not their class interests actually aligned with those at the top.
>Nazi leadership were interested in war materiel. German industrialists were interested in not getting kidnapped and tortured by the SS.Ah, like Peter Thiel, and Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, and Erik Prince… of course, the richest men in the country, or on Earth, would never possibly do anything evil of their own volition, for profit. That's just the domain of the politicians they hang out with, pay off, and support, and who invest in a lot of the very same lethal industries and profit off of them themselves. The German industrialists were all good boys who were
forced! into it by the wicked hand that paid them a bunch of money.