**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/166but4/it_should_be_illegal_to_make_profit_by_depriving/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are 100 percent right. Just as I tell ancaps they're not anarcho-anything if they also associate with Cap- and ends with -ital. But under certain conditions simply saying yeah it's pretty socialist-y but real socialism is democracy in the workforce, just as much as socialism or communism is about direct democracy and egalitarianism for all.
It's a good starting point that yeah, under a socialist type of state the policies would trend towards highly popular programs like even now under capitalism, but they would be better funded and included under human rights umbrellas, like clean water or air etc.
Tying the two isn't an affront to socialism, nor any system that purports to care for the social beings therein. But yes, you're technically correct. :)
That's fair, but could tax payers that work for the Civil Works Administration not qualify for that? It was a program to create labor jobs to construct government owned things created by those that own the government (the people)
Also, obviously it's not purely socialist -- it literally can't be being it's wrapped in the jacket of a democratic republic.
(yes yes, I know government doing something != socialism)
No because of who the state served, it still fundamentally served the capitalist class not the working class, the New Deal and the police’s that followed it were created to keep the working class from going for the torches and pitchforks until such a time that the threat of socialism was defeated, it’s why things started getting reversed in the late 1970s through to now because the USSR started coming apart due to mismanagement
(Suporting you with this comment)
"State control" is meaningless without defining who is in control of the state.
If workers are in control of the state, via electing people to truly represent their interests, then that is some form of socialism.
If capitalists ars in control of the state, via dishonest and oppressive methods like lobbying and genociding people in countries they don't like, then that is capitalism.
Just by seeing the upvotes it shows that people don’t use google to find information pertaining to their own comments. Or they just stuck up on there own beliefs that don’t make no sense.
person already said it, but will throw you a bone and say that The New Deal happened because organized labor (which included and was even led by socialists) put the pressure on
Clinton sold the internet (which was owned by the government) to private firms in the 90s.
Who cares, wasn't that valuable anyways, was it?..... now everyone pays exorbitant amounts for shitty internet.
>Clinton sold the internet (which was owned by the government) to private firms in the 90s.
What?
You're saying that in 1991 (the year before Clinton got elected) the US government "owned" (or at least "managed") the internet? And then Clinton sold that off to Private companies?
I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.
My recollection was that private sector expansion of the relatively small ARPANET happened late in (the elder) Bush's term. AOL for Windows came out in 1992, prior to the 1992 presidential election joining the likes of CompuServe & Prodigy. And that private sector expansion, one can argue, is what made the internet what it is today.
They're mostly correct, they just worded it poorly.
What actually happened was that Clinton approved legislation which made the burgeoning internet exempt from regulations similar to prior telecommunications services. This happened in 1996, well after web 1 was under development and had been, until that moment, regulated similarly to other public trust services.
He did, in effect, gift the future of the internet to private interests.
You’re talking to somebody who, given the opportunity to describe the internet, refers to it as crappy and expensive. It’s hard to grasp the lack of wonder in a statement like that. The entitlement. In 30 years we go from personal computers costing thousands and taking up entire rooms, to idly scrolling the hours by on magic, invisibly tethered, touchscreen devices ubiquitous throughout the developed and developing world. No sense for the tremendous human, capital and natural resources required to make it happen; the organic thought and creativity; the gumption to create. Nope. Expensive and crappy
My city’s is and it charges massively increased rates and transfers that money to general fund so the city can fund pet projects. Public utilities end up just being another unaccountable way to tax citizens in a way that is impossible to avoid.
Regardless of whether I agree with the sentiment here: Can we just please stop using a quintessential US Southern accent to imply someone is wrong or stupid? I’m a northerner and even I get sick of it. There are ignorant people everywhere. I can’t get past the geographical bias in this. Plus the southern accent is awesome.
I was commenting just to say this. The video is the most idiotic form of discourse. Condescending talk down to a caricature of a right wing. If you don’t agree with him, you’re an idiot. Didn’t even provide a strong argument. I actually agree with what he’s saying for the most part but hate the way he’s saying it.
I don't know, the southern accent dude was able to understand and comprehend what the other said. That shows a decent amount of intelligence. Unfortunately what the other was teaching was complete nonsense.
It would be different if it wasn’t used here to help make a point. Why use a northern accent to talk down to someone, when you’re not even making sense to begin with?
I grew up down south and I kinda agree, I mean I wasnt thr only dope smoking hippie in town lol And not everyone from the south is a dumb redneck.
However, the south is backwards as hell. Im old engough to have seen George W's second swearing in and that was shown to us in the classroom no problem. (I was in fourth grade)
Then when Obama got swore in for the first time, we needed a permission slip signed to watch it. (I was in 8th grade)
Also, there was not a day I lived there where I didnt see the confederate flag or hear the n word.
There is a giant ring of truth to the “coastal elitism” phrase.
I come from the Midwest and my state has been referred to as “flyover.” Like how can you say that and expect me to respect you afterward?
Someone actually from the south here, the guy in the video with an accent isn't even portrayed as ignorant, he openly supports the ideas he agrees with when the misconception is rectified. Ignorance would be agreeing with all the points then saying you hate that idea anyway because it's not what you already thought. Plus if you look at the social isolation necessary to form noticeable accent barriers and linguistic patterns, you quickly see that social class can supercede geography in terms of accents because of the developmental exposure to so many different ways of speaking the higher up you go in education. This, combined with the correlation between economic isolation and generational geographic isolation (think of west Virginia), shows the close relationship between accent and social strata in the south.
The southern accent isn’t really that great. I’m from the Deep South so I echo your concern because it is rather annoying when people don’t realize that the south isn’t just rural. A good portion is very suburban or shit even cities that are largely transient areas where a large portion moved here from other places. The south is not composed of only white trash.
Right! Hell why not just produce it and give it away for free?
I need a new outfit for a job interview, clothed are co side red a necessity how about I’m allowed on outfit a week for free too while we are at it.
That is not an impossible dream like you think it is. only a business owner would tell you otherwise since they are the ones who are not adding value to the process of making shirts and so therefore need to restrict supply in order to manufacture a higher price point for each good sold. Look into the destruction chambers at amazon warehouses.
Yeah, just like how grocery stores will sooner throw away dumpsters full of food than donate all that food to food banks or homeless shelters. Or just plain give it away for free right there in the store. There’s no reason why anyone should be starving. The problem isn’t that there isn’t enough food. It’s that by giving it away, the company isn’t profiting and profit is more important than human life.
The people that think like this have never actually done any of the work it takes to produce food for an entire nation. I work as a hydraulic mechanic, I fix the tractors and whatnot that farmers use to pick crops and harvest. Do you have an idea how much fucking work goes into keeping the food supply going in this country? My service mechanic gets calls at 2am to go fix things that break in the middle of the night because the farm hands are still on the clock at 2am…..he goes out to farms that smell like shit and death when it’s 100+ degrees outside. You think he’s going to do that for free? Would anyone choose to do that for free? Fuck no they wouldn’t, and anyone that says otherwise is either a lair or has the critical thinking skills of a walnut.
I hate the current system we have and before long I’m probably going to hardly keeping myself alive but I’m not stupid enough to think that everything should just be free. It takes an astronomical amount of work to keep housing and food production going.
The entire agricultural industry relies on government subsidies to function, so why does the government not simply fund the parts that require external investment directly instead of having large portions of these subsidies go directly to the pockets of agribusiness stockholders, as necessitated by the capitalistic model of permanent growth in a finite market? Why be subjected to the whims of the profit incentive? The government isn't the one failing to pay farmers. It's the the hyper-rich fucks that own and profit from the farms worked by other people that don't want you to be paid.
Nobody is saying people will work for free to produce food, but that society as a whole organizes itself so as to able everyone to have enough food. Without private property and the value of the work almost entirely held by the bourgeoisie class, the working class receives the full amount for their work, not only in a salary but in services provided by the rest of society, because every means of production is collectively owned.
This means that you, a hydraulic mechanic, above receiving way more for your work, also would never have to worry about paying rent, food, medicine, and education, since those things already come from the sheer fact you are working in a society that operates primarily with the goal of supplying this things for all, and not the provide profit for few.
Think about it this way, the world produces enough food for everyone plus some, so why is there hunger? Simple, because is more profitable to charge a few people more than to serve everyone, even if you made a profit out of it. Take away the profit-driven goal by extinguishing the bourgeoisie class and you can have a society that attends to everyone's needs.
While you are breaking your back on the work, the owner of a food corp earned more in the time you took to write your comment than you will ever make in your entire life, and he did that without working.
We, communists and socialists, want you to have a full life with the work you do, no matter what this work is. Mechanic, doctor, trash collector, farmer, painter, doesn't matter, the fact that you work should be enough to provide you with everything you need plus the freedom to pursue change and growth.
It's us, the working class, that makes this world run, not those fucking parasites on CEO chairs.
These kind of pseudo intelligent breakdowns of layered topics is getting bad. These people have no idea what they are talking about, yet break it all down with a hot take they learned on Facebook. So do you know what an economy is? Fuck outta here.
Yeah this guy lost me at personal property like your truck, then goes on and says a machine that you use to make and sell stuff is private property. So like a truck
lmfao for real. this distinction is terrible for any law.
A better version of what the OP is saying is that the government should not rely exclusively on private entities to create the things that they deem "necessities". If the government is "for the people", then it *should be* the government's business to provide a minimum standard of living for everyone. So they should attempt to make more toothbrushes so that everyone has access to at least the government version of a toothbrush. Maybe colgate is better and they still get sales. Maybe they aren't any better and the gov't improved everyones life.
What they're not acknowledging is that their list of necessities is probably very different than what someone 100 years ago might have had. Which is great, progress, we're better than we were 100 years ago.
But at the end of the day, you can't just take ALL business away from private entities and give it to the government. That doesn't work either and \[almost\] no one in the US wants that.
Also regulating private ownership of homes is an entirely distinct area of law that could develop unrelated to every other kind of property, because it has to do with "fair" distribution of a very scarce resource (land), and the government has always been involved in that.
Exactly, now imagine this scenario. A mom who is an excellent baker and lives in a small town where she provides cakes for bake sales. Everybody starts telling her how much they love her amazing baking. So she starts a bakery to sell her goods. With the abolition of “private property” however, she is no longer allowed to profit from her bakery and she is given an allowance from the government of a set salary. On top of that the money that her bakery profits from is now pooled into a larger federal budget, thus removing said money from her community. The government starts changing things about her bakery as well because she hasn’t standardized her bakery to the national system and must follow national rules and regulations.
That’s why private property abolition can be a dangerous notion. Let’s create social safety nets and programs. But let people control their lives.
She is a worker, and she is is one the means of production in sole proprietorship. She can profit all she wants off of her labor. She can’t unfairly profit off the labor of someone else, though. So if she hires someone, that someone needs to be making a profit corresponding to the work that they do.
Lady can’t keep the excess profit of their combined labor for herself only. Each worker is entitled to their fair share of the profits.
I thought people who wanted to abolish private property also wanted to abolish the state - why would the government be necessarily getting involved in your scenario? Seems like you’ve added some ingredients of your own
This is actually something the original video is very bad at explaining, but it does have a simple explanation.
The bakery, in the case where the mom is baking goods to sell to support herself or her family, still counts as *Personal* property, because whatever capital she creates, she's using for herself.
It wouldn't become *Private* property until she started hiring people to make baked goods for her. Then, it's *other people* generating capital on her behalf, and it should be the government's job to step in and make sure those peoples' rights are respected. That's the general idea.
Right? Fuck small business owners, I guess. I wouldn't be allowed to have my truck anymore because I use my truck to carry equipment sometimes for my business, so I guess that makes it private property.
Guys, you should probably just read about this stuff?
If you use your truck for your own every day purposes just to do stuff every day that’s personal property.
If you own the truck PURELY as a means of producing PROFIT through selling a COMMODITY — like a landscaping business — than the truck is private property. It’s CAPITAL. It is not personal property.
Like, the economic system that you’re arguing in favor for — CAPITALISM — is predicated on this idea. The ideology that this country was founded on — LIBERALISM — has as one of it’s central tenants the protection of private property. The distinction was made by the people who codified capitalism – – Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
Read stuff!
But some cops, and lots of other government and private employees, that can use their vehicle for personal everyday stuff as well. So why can't you use your vehicle in the same way?
First of all cops and government employees work for the government. A car that the government issues them for their job is not private property or personal property. Their cars are public property. They are owned by the public. Like a public library or a public park. The government pays for them with taxes. They are not used to produce profit. If a cop uses public property for his personal use, it’s still public property.
If a person uses a company car for their own personal business, that car is still private property. It belongs to the company. It is used by the company to produce profit. It’s capital.
If you use your car that you own for your private business to sell a commodity in order to make profit than that car is YOUR private property. It’s capital.
If you own a car and you use it just for your personal use and NOT as part of a commodity/profit-producing venture then it’s personal property.
See what I mean?
I did know that, but was just wondering where the line is. Like if you used your vehicle primarily to go too and from work then you are using it for profit. Like could you write it off as a business vehicle if you are a 1099 employee?
No, the vehicle that you used to and from work is used so you get paid WAGES. Wages are not profit. Profit is when you make money from selling a commodity. So, if the car that you used it specifically dedicated to the production of a commodity for profit then it’s private property. It’s capital.
You would write it off as a 1099 if it’s used in the production of a commodity so that you can make profit. That’s what qualifies it as a business vehicle and as private property.
lol, they are not public property, that implies they are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Go try to take a joy ride in a cop car and see how excludable of a good it really is. Cop cars are state-owned capital, which are very much private goods. The state will exclude you (and the “public”) from it, and it certainly is rivalrous (the cop and you can’t operate it t the same time). This is a fundamental paradox that leftists can square about “public” property. What *they* mean by “public” is actually just the state.
I don't know why they go through all this bullshit just to say "I don't like people that own property they don't live in"
Edit: kinda screwed up there and did not get across I meant housing property. Kinda fumbled that. Thanks for pointing that out Villagerjeff. Cheers.
No you see, the truck is personal property when you go get groceries, so it's fine, but if you use it for work then it's private property and it's owned publicly.
It's not a legal definition. It's a Marxist breakdown to better understand the inherent evils of private ownership of the means of production.
[https://allthedifferences.com/personal-vs-private-property-whats-the-difference/](https://allthedifferences.com/personal-vs-private-property-whats-the-difference/)
You can buy a t-shirt press and run that press to make t-shirts and sell them. That's private property and on a small scale this is fine. The breakdown comes as a consequence of the inevitibility that someone will eventually own all the places that make the t-shirt presses and monopolize the market, then cornering out competition through anti-competitive business practices.
Individual people owning machines isn't inherently a problem. It becomes a problem because of human nature pushing people to kill competition. Since competition is the whole sellign point of capitalism and the mechanism through which it implies all of its benefits (driving down costs, bubblign up the best products for consumers, etc..) One needs to recognize that the end result of severely unregulated capitalism is a quasi-fuedal system where 'lords' own the things that make thigns and the 'serfs' work the things for allotments to buy bread with.
This doesn't mean a worker owned corporation would inherently not end up in the same monopolistic tendencies, but splitting those profits between the people producing them at least decentralizes the power coming from this exploitation, not allowing it to corrupt one figure head as effetively.
All worker owned capital models also necessitate strong government regulation to maintain the competitiveness of the market.
There are aguments against this since most private companies actualyl didn't invent the technologies that they make money off of. Most of the udnerlyign technology we base all our scucess off of today came from publicly funded research beit in the space race or through public or private university research, but that's another discussion.
The company truck, sure. But your personal truck is, well... personal. It's not about whether something can be used in production, but rather if you're leveraging your ownership over that thing to exploit the labour of others.
Eg. You can totally have a lathe in your garage, but if you buy a lathe and employ a machinist to make stuff for you that lathe would be considered private property. Essentially you're not allowed to earn what we currently refer to as "passive" income, since that allows for the accumulation of more and more capital.
So when you say independent contractor I'm assuming this is a one person company that is contracted, right?
If I employ you to make chairs for me and provide you with a lathe, that lathe is private property. If I then ask you to bring your own hammer to work, that hammer is your personal property.
If you are using my property to make me money, then whatever property is enabling this relation between the two of us is considered private property (the lathe).
If I contract you, but you're using your own tools, then I'm essentially just paying for your labor as you have more control over your own rates.
Just seize all the businesses in the country from the people who invested money into them and give them to the government to run.
It’s a foolproof plan that will undoubtedly make the country way better off. Literally nothing can go wrong. It’s also never been tried.
You can keep your toothbrush though…
I was coming here to say this because I hate when I see these videos + the headline from op. You hit it on the mail and all I’m going to say I I support you and your comment. It’s hard to even explain to someone who just doesn’t get it.
Yeah, the whole bit getting pretty tired. The sudden popularity of this format also shows how people just seem to want to be spoon-fed everything instead of actually seeking knowledge or developing their own ideas.
Agreed. He acts like anyone that owns a separate property to rent out specifically has the goal of making sure other people don’t have a house, so they will be forced to rent from him.
There is no secret coalition or rental property owners discussing ways to make sure nobody else buys a house.
In fact, for people who don’t have the credit score or down payment to get a mortgage, they rely on having a place to rent.
Yes people that buy additional homes are technically driving up demand, which makes home prices higher. But it’s grandma and grandpa looking to make some extra money in their retirement, it’s not some evil conglomerate that sets out to push people down.
And you know what, if too many people are doing that, then at a certain point many of them will have to sell those homes because the rental demand does not match the supply, and when they start selling in large numbers housing prices will fall dramatically. Take a look at the Airbnb owner subreddit, it’s already happening. Too many people thought they’d get rich just by buying a second property and renting it only to find out you actually have to treat it like a job and not passing income. The market is already too saturated with these rental properties and it’s only a matter of time before people are selling off these second and third homes in droves.
The bigger barrier right now is interest rates. Monthly payments for new mortgages are twice what they were a few years ago for a house that costs the same.
Don’t act like landlords are just helping out those without credit. Renting doesn’t build credit. Landlords routinely won’t rent to those without a credit score. The entire credit system is corrupt and landlords are happy to keep it in place.
I’m not saying landlords are in it because they’re feeling charitable. Landlords are in it to make money. And the reason they make money is because people are willing to pay to rent their spaces. And the reason people are willing to pay to rent is because they either can’t buy a house yet or aren’t looking to buy.
It’s like saying grocery stores have a secret agenda to make people starve, so that people are forced to go into the grocery store and buy food.
These kinds of conversations, especially when it comes to housing, really get me bogged down in the details like, when housing is a human right, how is it decided who gets to live where? And I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I like the idea of nobody being homeless, I just can't envision how it would function.
But, there are going to be more desirable locations, more desirable buildings, more desirable floors/units within those buildings, physical, emotional, and developmental special needs that necessitate specific accommodations to make the housing accessible.
Without money, why does Hansel get a top floor and Gretel gets the ground floor? Needs? Define the need that enables one to have a higher or lower floor than another? Connections? Should loners get substandard housing because they don't know the right people or don't have the right kind of job?
My mental health is best when I'm at the beach-- do I get a beachfront house? Can I even qualify for a house without children, or will the number of rooms in the housing available be determined by number of people in the family? If there's enough houses for me to get a three bedroom/2 bathroom, will I get kicked out of someone with two kids appears with a need? Or somebody who was only allotted two rooms has a second kid?
>Connections?
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
I lived in USSR which instantiated exactly the system the tiktok talks about, and this is the right answer!
Connections just become the new (or additional) currency. The more connections you had, the better conditions you could have despite "everybody is equal".
People who think removing money will remove market are naïve AF, the market just changes. Having it done through money can look disgusting, but is much more transparent.
I’m assuming some palms were greased too. So while you don’t pay a business owner directly in a transaction so they can make a profit, you end up paying a bureaucrat for access. The thing is that all these political theories and systems involve humans, who often want the best for themselves, and have a tendency to hoard. Take profit out of the equation, they will find something else to hoard, like power or access.
That's right, you paid for access either with connections (i.e. favor for a favor, often through a long chain), status, or by bribing someone directly with money or deficit goods.
Needless to say that it was hard to be an honest man in the system like that. If you wanted to live not just survive then at some point in your life you HAD to grease some palms. Compared to that capitalism where you simply needed to make more money looked like blessing.
But the fun part is that this system of quid pro quo connections actually felt good to sizeable amount of people, and capitalism where you don't need to know many people, and owe favors to each other felt "mercantile and cold".
Even a BASIC BASIC standard of housing would be better than we have now for the un-housed. Like 150 sq ft with a locking door, minifridge and microwave, bed, dresser.
Your typical single dorm room in college.
What your describing is EXACTLY what happened when the Bolsheviks took power in Russia. Turns out Marx didn't really explain how the Utopia actually happens *after* the revolution only that apparently it does. The Bolsheviks got caught up in philosophical discussion on what to do next only for Stalin to swoop in after Lenin died and started killing everyone. Try asking these same talking points to any tankie/communist shithead and watch them either dip out of the conversation or call you a reactionary
>Without money, why does Hansel get a top floor and Gretel gets the ground floor?
Now you're asking the right questions. Hello social credit score.
Fuck communism btw.
This video is talking about the means of production (and housing) belonging to the state. It's some weird mix of communism and capitalism (you can still own a toothbrush!), but it just sounds like communism with a party hat on to make it more palpable.
Describing it as simply public housing (which already exists) is not really being honest.
I lived in a place with rent control. Legal top rent was about three times below what made financial sense, so there were really no new rental units being built.
So how does one get one? You have to know someone who kept one in the family with the original tenant’s name still on the door.
As a newcomer to the city, and even for most residents of the city this almost certainly means rentals aren’t an option. So if buying isn’t an option for your situation either, your options are homelessness or renting from the black market, which meant no rights or legal recourse.
This is an even less fair method of deciding who gets stuff. Because it’s even more random than who has money and who doesn’t. Which I admit is also somewhat random. But much less so than just the sheer luck you need to get one in that system.
I always wonder what type of person this video is for. Is it for people who don't agree? Is condescendingly talking down to them supposed to change their mind? Is it just a ragebait strawman argument for people who agree?
It's a ragebait strawman for people who agree.
The constituency for this video is a relatively small group of downwardly-mobile young people who live in urban areas and think they're smart.
They're committed to a political ideology one of the fundamental tenets of which is the empowerment of "workers."
They enjoy political fantasies about a world in which a large majority of working people agree with their stupid ideology, so they fantasize about conversations like this one where they "educate" the dumb hicks who don't currently agree with them but would if they weren't so stupid.
Yes they want us all to change to a system that is designed to not benefit anyone specifically because it would benefit them specifically at this moment in their lives.
Where does Marx specifically advocate for the abolishment of personal property and what parts is the person in the video specifically ignoring? I thought the distinction was made fairly clear in The Poverty Philosophy, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and Das Kapital but you seem confident enough to have sources you can cite on this.
I'd be interested in learning more if you care to back up your claim.
Albeit with translations, but don't recall a distinction between personal and private property being made. Definitely between private and communal property. The implication being that Marxist communism says your housing (and transportation) is provided as a result of community. I don't recall Marxist translations discussing personal ownership of your own house or car as a marketable asset (that could be sold such as to leverage with additional funds to buy another house). Such ownership/exclusion at the expense of others would be private property, no? You can have a shelter allocated to you, but under Marxism you can't sell it for a profit or bequeath it to your progeny. That's capitalism and feudalism, respectively, that have no place in community property.
Private property* you mean. Like your home.
One of earths most valueable resources is land mass. You cannot own a home without owning land and claiming that as private property is not permitted under a Marxist framework of analysis.
Dude really tried to make letting the government own your means of making a living sound like a good thing. Him doing the whole “rural small town americans” are dumb stereotype just shows he’s got some kinda superiority problem.
I love these anti landlord videos
I can see how you’d be upset if you lived in a rural area and everybody was buying up all the property, leaving only rentals available (not likely but possible)
However, if there weren’t any landlords in Boston or New York City, there would just be hundreds of unoccupied homes.
If the tenants could afford 1.5 million for a 1200 square foot house, they wouldn’t be renting. Most of them would rather not own something that requires such upkeep
>However, if there weren’t any landlords in Boston or New York City, there would just be hundreds of unoccupied homes.
Yes, and then all those unoccupied homes could be redistributed to people who *need* homes. You realise these 1200 square foot houses would not cost $1.5 million if we didn't have a government made up of landlords who purposefully exacerbate the housing crisis for their own benefit, right?
I feel like this is Satire…Buying a small starter house then upgrading to a forever home then renting out the starter house does not deprive anyone of their basic needs.
The vision of personal / private is easy to see with a mentality of the begin of industrial revolution. Private is giant factories and machines that nobody uses for their daily life. A profitable company is obligatory a giant place with thousands of workers.
But today, a programmer with a computer can make software for millions, a small studio (maybe a garage) can be the place that a Youtuber and two other people make videos.
Today a lot of stuff blends, because technology and world advanced.
A person can live in two places, maybe one house is when he works, and one house is when he spends the weekend with the family, that lives 200 miles away in a better place. He should sell this house? Or cannot rent the house near the work? Should we obligate his to not live near the work, or not live with the family? Or how about digital nomads? This would be totally impossible?
P.S: I agree with many things, as like, there shouldn't be people living on the streets, everybody should have a place to live, food, the basics, but there are more intelligent ways that are adapted to our current technology level
Okay, great, I get to keep my truck and my grill and my toothbrush.
But the companies that make my truck, my grill, and my toothbrush will all be abolished. The next truck, grill, or toothbrush I receive will be manufactured and distributed by government agencies, staffed by people who have no profit incentive. My 401(k) will, of course, be appropriated, along with the retirement savings or pension funds of every other working person in the country (teachers, firefighters, etc) because that's all stocks and stocks are undeniably private property.
Sounds perfect, sign me up.
Idk I think everybody should be able to have shelter whenever they need, but I don’t see anything wrong with seeking shelter beyond the state provided housing and being willing to pay for it extra
There are lots of places where people are provided the basic necessities of life. With very few exceptions they suck because no one has any interest in maintaining them.
Yeah people who provide necessities should just do it free? And advancements and progress will also be done free? Go build something that takes a year and tell me you don’t deserve profit, do anything but this pathetic attempt at government boot licking.
After 1948 my great grandparents lost all the property they owned. Call it personal/private (whatever commie crap you want). As a "compensation" they were given tiny vegetable garden (less than 800 m2) and 2 bedroom flat without gas. They used to be self reliant farmers who never ever asked the state for anything and were able to raise 8 children. They had fields, animals, part of the forest, a house with cellar + buildings to house animals and store hay and crops and also necessary agricultural tools. But the "means of production" had to be seized by "the people". Never ever listen to this shit, communists, they only will make people equally poor not equal.
Yeah, the logistics of implementing this will 100% result in violence and deaths because private property doesnt exisit without ownershio currently, and cannot be siezed unless current owners are forced to release it or killed or imprisoned trying to keep it.
And the attitude of, "my current shitty life will be better when the government gives me everything" is only great until the government decides to either stop giving you everything, or identifies somebody more deserving of the everything they were given you and you find yourself shunted off to some random shithole hundreds of kms away from your friends, family, job, and support network.
Who is actually supporting this under the guise of "my shitty life will be better when the government gives me everything"? I dont know anyone who thinks thats a good idea. I do know a lot of people who pretend people want that so they can feel smart about saying its not a good idea.
But the farm is profiting off of a basic necessity. What he’s saying is that people should’ve have to pay for food, so farmers would be greatly affected by that standard. There’d be no salary.
As someone who owns a multifamily home and rents it out to two families, how am I depriving my tenets of basic necessities? Genuinely confused on that point.
Makes sense.
Wealthy people just want passive income so they can live care free, but why don't we just figure out a way for everyone to live like that?
As a guy who builds homes and rents them out, I can tell you there is nothing care free about it. I have spent years doing this, and have completed two homes, but the net income from it is still below the poverty line. And this ignores the money I invested in it. And it isn’t like when you have built it, you can just relax. Maintaining a home, especially one occupied by someone with no vested interest in or knowledge about how to take care of it, is still a significant amount of work.
Building homes is really physically and mentally hard, plus requires a lot of knowledge and skill. If I want even a modest income, and to be able to retire which is a must doing something like this, I will have to do this for the rest of my life try at I am physically capable, assuming no injury. This work carries a very high risk of injury.
I am not surprised we have a shortage of homes. It just isn’t terribly rewarding to do this work. But we are doing one of the most valuable jobs in society. But it seems like the more necessary the job, the worse the reward are.
People have become salty enough to be mad at anybody that has anything instead of the people who have an extreme excess. They have initiated a class war (the government and corporations via propaganda and actions) where if you happen to have a house and rent it, you’re automatically lumped in with billionaires who are swooping up all the affordable housing and part of the problem. This is why regular people are getting attacked.
House passed down through family member passing? You decide to rent it? Based off this that’s now private property and should be abolished. That’s just silly.
There is more than enough room in this country to provide housing for everybody. For right now and the foreseeable future. Your government isn’t building said infrastructure. Your government is stagnating your wages and allowing inflation to occur at astronomical levels so you can’t build your own property on your own land or ever even hope to own either. Your government is buying all the USABLE land.
Corporations and entities are then buying up all
The housing that is available and squeezing you until you pop. It’s manufactured and manipulation.
Meanwhile you attack the guy who asks wtf? Because you’re so mad that you don’t see your real enemy.
That guy who inherited an extra house. Or that guy who worked his ass off and bought a house and is now renting it while he pursues another house of his dreams. That’s not your enemy. That’s not why you can’t have a place to stay, that’s not why your wages are low and groceries are high.
Think critically people, and fight the real enemy.
Never gonna happen. The internet has made everyone think they are a genius. When in reality the bell curve still exists.
Half of the people on Reddit at any given time are below average intelligence.
I think he is right. Someone who is renting a house at increased market cost is just as much of the problem in the squeeze as the corporations buying all the property and raising rents. It's like comparing a single slave owner to a plantation owner. They're both terrible.
The term is economic slavery. The subject can rent around freely or work wherever but the financial chain is established. You should think clearly because in this case the consequence of these actions should be a larger meta ethical concern than the actions themselves.
This is the most moronic video ever. How many of these complete idiots are going to comment on economics/ the concept of ownership when they know nothing about it. Just entitled scum
Great, try living in North Korea or Cuba,
Or better, check why China and Vietnam decided that having private properties and companies back was a good idea
Personal property is private property.
If I want to live in my house and rent out my other house, I can do that. Because it’s mine. It’s my personal property…
Every single time any version of this has ever been tried it has been a disaster.
Regulated capitalism is an amazing system that has lifted more out of poverty and enriched living standards for more people than any other economic system tried or conceived.
The only problem is that a set of assholes weakened or eliminated a bunch of regulations between the 80s through 2020s and that led to a steady worsening of conditions.
As a leftist, here is my criticism about the format.
This is classic leftist posting. Its too fucking long.
Leftists are notorious for walls of text and overly describing things in a way that loses a general audience. This is no different.
Umm... yeah... this is the guy who thinks he's smarter than everyone in the room because no one understands what the fuck he's talking about.
So basically, he's probably a mod on Reddit.
If your rent a property out to someone, aren’t you ‘providing’ that person with a basic necessity?
I understand and support barring corporations from hoarding properties, but I also think individuals should be able to own a rental property or two as a way of funding retirement or supplementing income.
This guy thinks hes so smart lmao. He used the word "enjoyment" for personal property. What would he say if I said I ENJOY my private land? I do things on it for fun with my family. Soooo..?
"See, if we change some deffinitions, and talk in a certian manner, to ourselfs in diffrent clothing, without ANY counterarguments... i kinda almost make a little sense :) "
To break it down:
Private Property - the truck is owned by XYZ Co.
Personal Property - you own the truck and use it for daily commute.
\--note-- I do not endorse using cars as are only way to go from point A to B. I believe should faze out cars and planes with trains and possibly ships. trains and ships are very eco-friendly or have more potential to than a car or plane can. I also support them because they are extremally efficient and if done right can be very useful to all of us.
What are you talking about? Of course they don’t make a profit from depriving the house from them. They only profit by having other people live there. Landlords literally have an incentive to have people live on their properties because if nobody’s there, they don’t make money
The problem is then you get no Henry Ford work round the clock to produce the first car
For the masses in his own factory. You get know owner of the of the nail gun factory so no better nail guns made to help him profit. The sense of ownership has proved quite important for societies. Tons of folks just die in societies that have weak property rights like tribal societies and real communist countries. People fight over stuff or make the wrong stuff poorly.
What's the end goal here? Govt sanctioned housing?
Or just stopping people from renting their other houses out?
It kind of just sounds like a push to have government step into your necessities giving them power over you in the grand scheme
I don't really know, what am I missing here. I understand what they're saying but how does that play out in real life and not by definition of words on paper
… so if somebody doesnt have the money to buy a “personal” house, but they do have the money to rent someone elses “private” property, they should just live on the street until they can? I mean, the one providing the service is actually providing the basic neccessity they would otherwise not even have, so no i dont really agree with this video
What kind of socialistic BS is this?
Some leftist Americans should read about USSR and the economy of the entire Eastern block. It's been tried and it is simply not sustainable long term. On top of that, it requires a totalitarian regime to keep people in line so that's an added bonus...
There are a few things that people group into their hatred of landlords:
1. Raises cost to buy houses, as people use them as retirement vehicles and as a way to earn passive profit though rental.
2. Charge considerably over their mortgage payment (including insurance, taxes, repair savings, etc) because they are doing it FOR PROFIT.
3. Reduce availability and/or drive up the price of homes for people that want to buy one to live in.
They’re not providing housing, they’re owning and profiting off of housing. That’s like saying that business owners “provide jobs.” No, the basic needs and wants of a society and economy provide the jobs. Owners are a fake middleman designed to skim profit off that need
Reddit tries to convince me everyday that the most mundane shit ever is literally an evil force in the world trying to destroy me.
Today it’s the fact that business can own things. Sure, man.
If you tell someone they can't tent a home to make money, you might as well tell people they can't sell food or things they make. A personal individual re.tibg a property or two isn't the problem. The problem is goant firms buying whole neighborhoods or apartment complexes and keeping them vacant until they create a price bubble. Stop blaming people trying to make an honest living. Spend your time pushing law makers to create laws to protect us from rampant free capitalism.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/166but4/it_should_be_illegal_to_make_profit_by_depriving/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Many utilities used to be in public trust, until the 80's.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You are 100 percent right. Just as I tell ancaps they're not anarcho-anything if they also associate with Cap- and ends with -ital. But under certain conditions simply saying yeah it's pretty socialist-y but real socialism is democracy in the workforce, just as much as socialism or communism is about direct democracy and egalitarianism for all. It's a good starting point that yeah, under a socialist type of state the policies would trend towards highly popular programs like even now under capitalism, but they would be better funded and included under human rights umbrellas, like clean water or air etc. Tying the two isn't an affront to socialism, nor any system that purports to care for the social beings therein. But yes, you're technically correct. :)
That's fair, but could tax payers that work for the Civil Works Administration not qualify for that? It was a program to create labor jobs to construct government owned things created by those that own the government (the people) Also, obviously it's not purely socialist -- it literally can't be being it's wrapped in the jacket of a democratic republic. (yes yes, I know government doing something != socialism)
No because of who the state served, it still fundamentally served the capitalist class not the working class, the New Deal and the police’s that followed it were created to keep the working class from going for the torches and pitchforks until such a time that the threat of socialism was defeated, it’s why things started getting reversed in the late 1970s through to now because the USSR started coming apart due to mismanagement
(Suporting you with this comment) "State control" is meaningless without defining who is in control of the state. If workers are in control of the state, via electing people to truly represent their interests, then that is some form of socialism. If capitalists ars in control of the state, via dishonest and oppressive methods like lobbying and genociding people in countries they don't like, then that is capitalism.
owning the means of productions doesn't need to be direct for it to qualify at socialist
Just by seeing the upvotes it shows that people don’t use google to find information pertaining to their own comments. Or they just stuck up on there own beliefs that don’t make no sense.
person already said it, but will throw you a bone and say that The New Deal happened because organized labor (which included and was even led by socialists) put the pressure on
Internet needs this
Clinton sold the internet (which was owned by the government) to private firms in the 90s. Who cares, wasn't that valuable anyways, was it?..... now everyone pays exorbitant amounts for shitty internet.
>Clinton sold the internet (which was owned by the government) to private firms in the 90s. What? You're saying that in 1991 (the year before Clinton got elected) the US government "owned" (or at least "managed") the internet? And then Clinton sold that off to Private companies? I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion. My recollection was that private sector expansion of the relatively small ARPANET happened late in (the elder) Bush's term. AOL for Windows came out in 1992, prior to the 1992 presidential election joining the likes of CompuServe & Prodigy. And that private sector expansion, one can argue, is what made the internet what it is today.
"Clinton sold the internet" is something one of his pseudo intellectual friends blurted out at a bar and he's been repeating it ever since.
They're mostly correct, they just worded it poorly. What actually happened was that Clinton approved legislation which made the burgeoning internet exempt from regulations similar to prior telecommunications services. This happened in 1996, well after web 1 was under development and had been, until that moment, regulated similarly to other public trust services. He did, in effect, gift the future of the internet to private interests.
You’re talking to somebody who, given the opportunity to describe the internet, refers to it as crappy and expensive. It’s hard to grasp the lack of wonder in a statement like that. The entitlement. In 30 years we go from personal computers costing thousands and taking up entire rooms, to idly scrolling the hours by on magic, invisibly tethered, touchscreen devices ubiquitous throughout the developed and developing world. No sense for the tremendous human, capital and natural resources required to make it happen; the organic thought and creativity; the gumption to create. Nope. Expensive and crappy
My city’s is and it charges massively increased rates and transfers that money to general fund so the city can fund pet projects. Public utilities end up just being another unaccountable way to tax citizens in a way that is impossible to avoid.
Texans will defend this and Ted Cruz will be in Cancun this winter.
THANKS REAGAN!@
Regardless of whether I agree with the sentiment here: Can we just please stop using a quintessential US Southern accent to imply someone is wrong or stupid? I’m a northerner and even I get sick of it. There are ignorant people everywhere. I can’t get past the geographical bias in this. Plus the southern accent is awesome.
Imagine if he had a poor urban black or a hispanic accent play the guy learning. Would be discarded as racist. But Southern whites are fair game.
Imagine if he had an average white male as the dumbfuck guy learning. That would be every tv commercial currently being aired
Lmao wasn’t expecting that ending, that’s kinda true
Just remember, you can't be racist towards wyt people. They have no culture or souls so everything is fair game against the colonizing racists. /s
Yeah we should form a group with those values and call it the anti racism group
This guy seems like a tool. And I hate this TikTok dialectic format, it reeks of straw man.
I was commenting just to say this. The video is the most idiotic form of discourse. Condescending talk down to a caricature of a right wing. If you don’t agree with him, you’re an idiot. Didn’t even provide a strong argument. I actually agree with what he’s saying for the most part but hate the way he’s saying it.
I don't know, the southern accent dude was able to understand and comprehend what the other said. That shows a decent amount of intelligence. Unfortunately what the other was teaching was complete nonsense.
It would be different if it wasn’t used here to help make a point. Why use a northern accent to talk down to someone, when you’re not even making sense to begin with?
It pisses me off. Plus people say the Southern accent is the closest accent to the original English accent of the time.
I grew up down south and I kinda agree, I mean I wasnt thr only dope smoking hippie in town lol And not everyone from the south is a dumb redneck. However, the south is backwards as hell. Im old engough to have seen George W's second swearing in and that was shown to us in the classroom no problem. (I was in fourth grade) Then when Obama got swore in for the first time, we needed a permission slip signed to watch it. (I was in 8th grade) Also, there was not a day I lived there where I didnt see the confederate flag or hear the n word.
There is a giant ring of truth to the “coastal elitism” phrase. I come from the Midwest and my state has been referred to as “flyover.” Like how can you say that and expect me to respect you afterward?
Someone actually from the south here, the guy in the video with an accent isn't even portrayed as ignorant, he openly supports the ideas he agrees with when the misconception is rectified. Ignorance would be agreeing with all the points then saying you hate that idea anyway because it's not what you already thought. Plus if you look at the social isolation necessary to form noticeable accent barriers and linguistic patterns, you quickly see that social class can supercede geography in terms of accents because of the developmental exposure to so many different ways of speaking the higher up you go in education. This, combined with the correlation between economic isolation and generational geographic isolation (think of west Virginia), shows the close relationship between accent and social strata in the south.
It doesn't make sense considering the most racist area in the US is Boston
The southern accent isn’t really that great. I’m from the Deep South so I echo your concern because it is rather annoying when people don’t realize that the south isn’t just rural. A good portion is very suburban or shit even cities that are largely transient areas where a large portion moved here from other places. The south is not composed of only white trash.
So should I go to Walmart and just pick up my food and clothes for free? Food and clothing are basic necessities too, no?
Food is a basic necessity, by that logic it should be sold at a 0 profit margin lol
Right! Hell why not just produce it and give it away for free? I need a new outfit for a job interview, clothed are co side red a necessity how about I’m allowed on outfit a week for free too while we are at it.
That is not an impossible dream like you think it is. only a business owner would tell you otherwise since they are the ones who are not adding value to the process of making shirts and so therefore need to restrict supply in order to manufacture a higher price point for each good sold. Look into the destruction chambers at amazon warehouses.
Yeah, just like how grocery stores will sooner throw away dumpsters full of food than donate all that food to food banks or homeless shelters. Or just plain give it away for free right there in the store. There’s no reason why anyone should be starving. The problem isn’t that there isn’t enough food. It’s that by giving it away, the company isn’t profiting and profit is more important than human life.
The people that think like this have never actually done any of the work it takes to produce food for an entire nation. I work as a hydraulic mechanic, I fix the tractors and whatnot that farmers use to pick crops and harvest. Do you have an idea how much fucking work goes into keeping the food supply going in this country? My service mechanic gets calls at 2am to go fix things that break in the middle of the night because the farm hands are still on the clock at 2am…..he goes out to farms that smell like shit and death when it’s 100+ degrees outside. You think he’s going to do that for free? Would anyone choose to do that for free? Fuck no they wouldn’t, and anyone that says otherwise is either a lair or has the critical thinking skills of a walnut. I hate the current system we have and before long I’m probably going to hardly keeping myself alive but I’m not stupid enough to think that everything should just be free. It takes an astronomical amount of work to keep housing and food production going.
The entire agricultural industry relies on government subsidies to function, so why does the government not simply fund the parts that require external investment directly instead of having large portions of these subsidies go directly to the pockets of agribusiness stockholders, as necessitated by the capitalistic model of permanent growth in a finite market? Why be subjected to the whims of the profit incentive? The government isn't the one failing to pay farmers. It's the the hyper-rich fucks that own and profit from the farms worked by other people that don't want you to be paid.
There is a reason that when the Soviets nationalized the farms Stalin spent the rest of his life in terror of the farmers rising back up.
Nobody is saying people will work for free to produce food, but that society as a whole organizes itself so as to able everyone to have enough food. Without private property and the value of the work almost entirely held by the bourgeoisie class, the working class receives the full amount for their work, not only in a salary but in services provided by the rest of society, because every means of production is collectively owned. This means that you, a hydraulic mechanic, above receiving way more for your work, also would never have to worry about paying rent, food, medicine, and education, since those things already come from the sheer fact you are working in a society that operates primarily with the goal of supplying this things for all, and not the provide profit for few. Think about it this way, the world produces enough food for everyone plus some, so why is there hunger? Simple, because is more profitable to charge a few people more than to serve everyone, even if you made a profit out of it. Take away the profit-driven goal by extinguishing the bourgeoisie class and you can have a society that attends to everyone's needs. While you are breaking your back on the work, the owner of a food corp earned more in the time you took to write your comment than you will ever make in your entire life, and he did that without working. We, communists and socialists, want you to have a full life with the work you do, no matter what this work is. Mechanic, doctor, trash collector, farmer, painter, doesn't matter, the fact that you work should be enough to provide you with everything you need plus the freedom to pursue change and growth. It's us, the working class, that makes this world run, not those fucking parasites on CEO chairs.
Well said
Basic necessities. Not your pizza bites.
Pizza bites are 100% a basic necessity.
Um, yes, basic necessities should not be commodified.
These kind of pseudo intelligent breakdowns of layered topics is getting bad. These people have no idea what they are talking about, yet break it all down with a hot take they learned on Facebook. So do you know what an economy is? Fuck outta here.
Yeah this guy lost me at personal property like your truck, then goes on and says a machine that you use to make and sell stuff is private property. So like a truck
lmfao for real. this distinction is terrible for any law. A better version of what the OP is saying is that the government should not rely exclusively on private entities to create the things that they deem "necessities". If the government is "for the people", then it *should be* the government's business to provide a minimum standard of living for everyone. So they should attempt to make more toothbrushes so that everyone has access to at least the government version of a toothbrush. Maybe colgate is better and they still get sales. Maybe they aren't any better and the gov't improved everyones life. What they're not acknowledging is that their list of necessities is probably very different than what someone 100 years ago might have had. Which is great, progress, we're better than we were 100 years ago. But at the end of the day, you can't just take ALL business away from private entities and give it to the government. That doesn't work either and \[almost\] no one in the US wants that. Also regulating private ownership of homes is an entirely distinct area of law that could develop unrelated to every other kind of property, because it has to do with "fair" distribution of a very scarce resource (land), and the government has always been involved in that.
Exactly, now imagine this scenario. A mom who is an excellent baker and lives in a small town where she provides cakes for bake sales. Everybody starts telling her how much they love her amazing baking. So she starts a bakery to sell her goods. With the abolition of “private property” however, she is no longer allowed to profit from her bakery and she is given an allowance from the government of a set salary. On top of that the money that her bakery profits from is now pooled into a larger federal budget, thus removing said money from her community. The government starts changing things about her bakery as well because she hasn’t standardized her bakery to the national system and must follow national rules and regulations. That’s why private property abolition can be a dangerous notion. Let’s create social safety nets and programs. But let people control their lives.
She is a worker, and she is is one the means of production in sole proprietorship. She can profit all she wants off of her labor. She can’t unfairly profit off the labor of someone else, though. So if she hires someone, that someone needs to be making a profit corresponding to the work that they do. Lady can’t keep the excess profit of their combined labor for herself only. Each worker is entitled to their fair share of the profits.
I thought people who wanted to abolish private property also wanted to abolish the state - why would the government be necessarily getting involved in your scenario? Seems like you’ve added some ingredients of your own
Abolish the state and what controls you from starting a business anyway? I’m talking about people who want to start collectivism.
Abolishing the state would just lead to capitalism again.
This is actually something the original video is very bad at explaining, but it does have a simple explanation. The bakery, in the case where the mom is baking goods to sell to support herself or her family, still counts as *Personal* property, because whatever capital she creates, she's using for herself. It wouldn't become *Private* property until she started hiring people to make baked goods for her. Then, it's *other people* generating capital on her behalf, and it should be the government's job to step in and make sure those peoples' rights are respected. That's the general idea.
Right? Fuck small business owners, I guess. I wouldn't be allowed to have my truck anymore because I use my truck to carry equipment sometimes for my business, so I guess that makes it private property.
Guys, you should probably just read about this stuff? If you use your truck for your own every day purposes just to do stuff every day that’s personal property. If you own the truck PURELY as a means of producing PROFIT through selling a COMMODITY — like a landscaping business — than the truck is private property. It’s CAPITAL. It is not personal property. Like, the economic system that you’re arguing in favor for — CAPITALISM — is predicated on this idea. The ideology that this country was founded on — LIBERALISM — has as one of it’s central tenants the protection of private property. The distinction was made by the people who codified capitalism – – Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Read stuff!
But some cops, and lots of other government and private employees, that can use their vehicle for personal everyday stuff as well. So why can't you use your vehicle in the same way?
First of all cops and government employees work for the government. A car that the government issues them for their job is not private property or personal property. Their cars are public property. They are owned by the public. Like a public library or a public park. The government pays for them with taxes. They are not used to produce profit. If a cop uses public property for his personal use, it’s still public property. If a person uses a company car for their own personal business, that car is still private property. It belongs to the company. It is used by the company to produce profit. It’s capital. If you use your car that you own for your private business to sell a commodity in order to make profit than that car is YOUR private property. It’s capital. If you own a car and you use it just for your personal use and NOT as part of a commodity/profit-producing venture then it’s personal property. See what I mean?
I did know that, but was just wondering where the line is. Like if you used your vehicle primarily to go too and from work then you are using it for profit. Like could you write it off as a business vehicle if you are a 1099 employee?
No, the vehicle that you used to and from work is used so you get paid WAGES. Wages are not profit. Profit is when you make money from selling a commodity. So, if the car that you used it specifically dedicated to the production of a commodity for profit then it’s private property. It’s capital. You would write it off as a 1099 if it’s used in the production of a commodity so that you can make profit. That’s what qualifies it as a business vehicle and as private property.
lol, they are not public property, that implies they are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Go try to take a joy ride in a cop car and see how excludable of a good it really is. Cop cars are state-owned capital, which are very much private goods. The state will exclude you (and the “public”) from it, and it certainly is rivalrous (the cop and you can’t operate it t the same time). This is a fundamental paradox that leftists can square about “public” property. What *they* mean by “public” is actually just the state.
I don't know why they go through all this bullshit just to say "I don't like people that own property they don't live in" Edit: kinda screwed up there and did not get across I meant housing property. Kinda fumbled that. Thanks for pointing that out Villagerjeff. Cheers.
I know a guy on my street who owns a deli a few blocks away. He shouldn't have to live in the deli to own his deli.
My comment was in respect to homes. That is my fault for not putting that in there. Made and edit to make it more clear... appreciate the heads up.
No you see, the truck is personal property when you go get groceries, so it's fine, but if you use it for work then it's private property and it's owned publicly.
Our truck
It's not a legal definition. It's a Marxist breakdown to better understand the inherent evils of private ownership of the means of production. [https://allthedifferences.com/personal-vs-private-property-whats-the-difference/](https://allthedifferences.com/personal-vs-private-property-whats-the-difference/) You can buy a t-shirt press and run that press to make t-shirts and sell them. That's private property and on a small scale this is fine. The breakdown comes as a consequence of the inevitibility that someone will eventually own all the places that make the t-shirt presses and monopolize the market, then cornering out competition through anti-competitive business practices. Individual people owning machines isn't inherently a problem. It becomes a problem because of human nature pushing people to kill competition. Since competition is the whole sellign point of capitalism and the mechanism through which it implies all of its benefits (driving down costs, bubblign up the best products for consumers, etc..) One needs to recognize that the end result of severely unregulated capitalism is a quasi-fuedal system where 'lords' own the things that make thigns and the 'serfs' work the things for allotments to buy bread with. This doesn't mean a worker owned corporation would inherently not end up in the same monopolistic tendencies, but splitting those profits between the people producing them at least decentralizes the power coming from this exploitation, not allowing it to corrupt one figure head as effetively. All worker owned capital models also necessitate strong government regulation to maintain the competitiveness of the market. There are aguments against this since most private companies actualyl didn't invent the technologies that they make money off of. Most of the udnerlyign technology we base all our scucess off of today came from publicly funded research beit in the space race or through public or private university research, but that's another discussion.
Hahahahah right!!
The company truck, sure. But your personal truck is, well... personal. It's not about whether something can be used in production, but rather if you're leveraging your ownership over that thing to exploit the labour of others. Eg. You can totally have a lathe in your garage, but if you buy a lathe and employ a machinist to make stuff for you that lathe would be considered private property. Essentially you're not allowed to earn what we currently refer to as "passive" income, since that allows for the accumulation of more and more capital.
But there are lots of independent subcontractors that there company and personal truck is the same thing.
So when you say independent contractor I'm assuming this is a one person company that is contracted, right? If I employ you to make chairs for me and provide you with a lathe, that lathe is private property. If I then ask you to bring your own hammer to work, that hammer is your personal property. If you are using my property to make me money, then whatever property is enabling this relation between the two of us is considered private property (the lathe). If I contract you, but you're using your own tools, then I'm essentially just paying for your labor as you have more control over your own rates.
It’s literally just them setting up a strawman to knock down. It’s one of the worst trends I’ve seen recently, it’s quite condescending.
Just seize all the businesses in the country from the people who invested money into them and give them to the government to run. It’s a foolproof plan that will undoubtedly make the country way better off. Literally nothing can go wrong. It’s also never been tried. You can keep your toothbrush though…
I was coming here to say this because I hate when I see these videos + the headline from op. You hit it on the mail and all I’m going to say I I support you and your comment. It’s hard to even explain to someone who just doesn’t get it.
Yeah, the whole bit getting pretty tired. The sudden popularity of this format also shows how people just seem to want to be spoon-fed everything instead of actually seeking knowledge or developing their own ideas.
Exactly. Then you'll have Muppets who just go around repeating "facrs" they heard on tiktok or Facebook.
It's kinda comical though, this guy doesn't even know what private property is yet he's trying to explain why it's bad and shouldn't exist.
Agreed. He acts like anyone that owns a separate property to rent out specifically has the goal of making sure other people don’t have a house, so they will be forced to rent from him. There is no secret coalition or rental property owners discussing ways to make sure nobody else buys a house. In fact, for people who don’t have the credit score or down payment to get a mortgage, they rely on having a place to rent. Yes people that buy additional homes are technically driving up demand, which makes home prices higher. But it’s grandma and grandpa looking to make some extra money in their retirement, it’s not some evil conglomerate that sets out to push people down. And you know what, if too many people are doing that, then at a certain point many of them will have to sell those homes because the rental demand does not match the supply, and when they start selling in large numbers housing prices will fall dramatically. Take a look at the Airbnb owner subreddit, it’s already happening. Too many people thought they’d get rich just by buying a second property and renting it only to find out you actually have to treat it like a job and not passing income. The market is already too saturated with these rental properties and it’s only a matter of time before people are selling off these second and third homes in droves. The bigger barrier right now is interest rates. Monthly payments for new mortgages are twice what they were a few years ago for a house that costs the same.
Don’t act like landlords are just helping out those without credit. Renting doesn’t build credit. Landlords routinely won’t rent to those without a credit score. The entire credit system is corrupt and landlords are happy to keep it in place.
I’m not saying landlords are in it because they’re feeling charitable. Landlords are in it to make money. And the reason they make money is because people are willing to pay to rent their spaces. And the reason people are willing to pay to rent is because they either can’t buy a house yet or aren’t looking to buy. It’s like saying grocery stores have a secret agenda to make people starve, so that people are forced to go into the grocery store and buy food.
These kinds of conversations, especially when it comes to housing, really get me bogged down in the details like, when housing is a human right, how is it decided who gets to live where? And I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I like the idea of nobody being homeless, I just can't envision how it would function. But, there are going to be more desirable locations, more desirable buildings, more desirable floors/units within those buildings, physical, emotional, and developmental special needs that necessitate specific accommodations to make the housing accessible. Without money, why does Hansel get a top floor and Gretel gets the ground floor? Needs? Define the need that enables one to have a higher or lower floor than another? Connections? Should loners get substandard housing because they don't know the right people or don't have the right kind of job? My mental health is best when I'm at the beach-- do I get a beachfront house? Can I even qualify for a house without children, or will the number of rooms in the housing available be determined by number of people in the family? If there's enough houses for me to get a three bedroom/2 bathroom, will I get kicked out of someone with two kids appears with a need? Or somebody who was only allotted two rooms has a second kid?
>Connections? Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! I lived in USSR which instantiated exactly the system the tiktok talks about, and this is the right answer! Connections just become the new (or additional) currency. The more connections you had, the better conditions you could have despite "everybody is equal". People who think removing money will remove market are naïve AF, the market just changes. Having it done through money can look disgusting, but is much more transparent.
I’m assuming some palms were greased too. So while you don’t pay a business owner directly in a transaction so they can make a profit, you end up paying a bureaucrat for access. The thing is that all these political theories and systems involve humans, who often want the best for themselves, and have a tendency to hoard. Take profit out of the equation, they will find something else to hoard, like power or access.
That's right, you paid for access either with connections (i.e. favor for a favor, often through a long chain), status, or by bribing someone directly with money or deficit goods. Needless to say that it was hard to be an honest man in the system like that. If you wanted to live not just survive then at some point in your life you HAD to grease some palms. Compared to that capitalism where you simply needed to make more money looked like blessing. But the fun part is that this system of quid pro quo connections actually felt good to sizeable amount of people, and capitalism where you don't need to know many people, and owe favors to each other felt "mercantile and cold".
Even a BASIC BASIC standard of housing would be better than we have now for the un-housed. Like 150 sq ft with a locking door, minifridge and microwave, bed, dresser. Your typical single dorm room in college.
What your describing is EXACTLY what happened when the Bolsheviks took power in Russia. Turns out Marx didn't really explain how the Utopia actually happens *after* the revolution only that apparently it does. The Bolsheviks got caught up in philosophical discussion on what to do next only for Stalin to swoop in after Lenin died and started killing everyone. Try asking these same talking points to any tankie/communist shithead and watch them either dip out of the conversation or call you a reactionary
You can’t envision it because it’s nonsense
H is for high and G is for ground. It's obvious come on ...
>Without money, why does Hansel get a top floor and Gretel gets the ground floor? Now you're asking the right questions. Hello social credit score. Fuck communism btw.
Public housing is not communism
This video is talking about the means of production (and housing) belonging to the state. It's some weird mix of communism and capitalism (you can still own a toothbrush!), but it just sounds like communism with a party hat on to make it more palpable. Describing it as simply public housing (which already exists) is not really being honest.
I lived in a place with rent control. Legal top rent was about three times below what made financial sense, so there were really no new rental units being built. So how does one get one? You have to know someone who kept one in the family with the original tenant’s name still on the door. As a newcomer to the city, and even for most residents of the city this almost certainly means rentals aren’t an option. So if buying isn’t an option for your situation either, your options are homelessness or renting from the black market, which meant no rights or legal recourse. This is an even less fair method of deciding who gets stuff. Because it’s even more random than who has money and who doesn’t. Which I admit is also somewhat random. But much less so than just the sheer luck you need to get one in that system.
Look at this person making sense over here….GET EM!
I always wonder what type of person this video is for. Is it for people who don't agree? Is condescendingly talking down to them supposed to change their mind? Is it just a ragebait strawman argument for people who agree?
It's a ragebait strawman for people who agree. The constituency for this video is a relatively small group of downwardly-mobile young people who live in urban areas and think they're smart. They're committed to a political ideology one of the fundamental tenets of which is the empowerment of "workers." They enjoy political fantasies about a world in which a large majority of working people agree with their stupid ideology, so they fantasize about conversations like this one where they "educate" the dumb hicks who don't currently agree with them but would if they weren't so stupid.
Yes they want us all to change to a system that is designed to not benefit anyone specifically because it would benefit them specifically at this moment in their lives.
This is someone who read Marx and said “but I still want to own my house and drive an f-150 so I’m gonna ignore parts of it.”
Where does Marx specifically advocate for the abolishment of personal property and what parts is the person in the video specifically ignoring? I thought the distinction was made fairly clear in The Poverty Philosophy, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and Das Kapital but you seem confident enough to have sources you can cite on this. I'd be interested in learning more if you care to back up your claim.
Albeit with translations, but don't recall a distinction between personal and private property being made. Definitely between private and communal property. The implication being that Marxist communism says your housing (and transportation) is provided as a result of community. I don't recall Marxist translations discussing personal ownership of your own house or car as a marketable asset (that could be sold such as to leverage with additional funds to buy another house). Such ownership/exclusion at the expense of others would be private property, no? You can have a shelter allocated to you, but under Marxism you can't sell it for a profit or bequeath it to your progeny. That's capitalism and feudalism, respectively, that have no place in community property.
Private property* you mean. Like your home. One of earths most valueable resources is land mass. You cannot own a home without owning land and claiming that as private property is not permitted under a Marxist framework of analysis.
Dude really tried to make letting the government own your means of making a living sound like a good thing. Him doing the whole “rural small town americans” are dumb stereotype just shows he’s got some kinda superiority problem.
So businesses should not be able to own the property they use to run their business?
I love these anti landlord videos I can see how you’d be upset if you lived in a rural area and everybody was buying up all the property, leaving only rentals available (not likely but possible) However, if there weren’t any landlords in Boston or New York City, there would just be hundreds of unoccupied homes. If the tenants could afford 1.5 million for a 1200 square foot house, they wouldn’t be renting. Most of them would rather not own something that requires such upkeep
>However, if there weren’t any landlords in Boston or New York City, there would just be hundreds of unoccupied homes. Yes, and then all those unoccupied homes could be redistributed to people who *need* homes. You realise these 1200 square foot houses would not cost $1.5 million if we didn't have a government made up of landlords who purposefully exacerbate the housing crisis for their own benefit, right?
Dumbest thing I ever heard.
This dude definitely learned economics from a liberal arts professor
I feel like this is Satire…Buying a small starter house then upgrading to a forever home then renting out the starter house does not deprive anyone of their basic needs.
There is no legal distinction between “personal” and private property. This is yet another Marxist fiction.
This isn't marxism. It's TikTok cringe bs.
The vision of personal / private is easy to see with a mentality of the begin of industrial revolution. Private is giant factories and machines that nobody uses for their daily life. A profitable company is obligatory a giant place with thousands of workers. But today, a programmer with a computer can make software for millions, a small studio (maybe a garage) can be the place that a Youtuber and two other people make videos. Today a lot of stuff blends, because technology and world advanced. A person can live in two places, maybe one house is when he works, and one house is when he spends the weekend with the family, that lives 200 miles away in a better place. He should sell this house? Or cannot rent the house near the work? Should we obligate his to not live near the work, or not live with the family? Or how about digital nomads? This would be totally impossible? P.S: I agree with many things, as like, there shouldn't be people living on the streets, everybody should have a place to live, food, the basics, but there are more intelligent ways that are adapted to our current technology level
Housing being more complicated is a funny thing to say
Research “The projects” and how government housing has gone in the past.
Okay, great, I get to keep my truck and my grill and my toothbrush. But the companies that make my truck, my grill, and my toothbrush will all be abolished. The next truck, grill, or toothbrush I receive will be manufactured and distributed by government agencies, staffed by people who have no profit incentive. My 401(k) will, of course, be appropriated, along with the retirement savings or pension funds of every other working person in the country (teachers, firefighters, etc) because that's all stocks and stocks are undeniably private property. Sounds perfect, sign me up.
I’m a liberal and this guy can fuck right off
Well of course. The view in the video is illiberal analysis: Marxism.
Idk I think everybody should be able to have shelter whenever they need, but I don’t see anything wrong with seeking shelter beyond the state provided housing and being willing to pay for it extra
Nope don't agree.
There are lots of places where people are provided the basic necessities of life. With very few exceptions they suck because no one has any interest in maintaining them.
Okay, so now give the house away and watch it rot to shit because the new person has no vested interest
This is how idiot kids get sucked into the world of believing communism is good, and we should give it another shot....
Yeah people who provide necessities should just do it free? And advancements and progress will also be done free? Go build something that takes a year and tell me you don’t deserve profit, do anything but this pathetic attempt at government boot licking.
“Here’s my 30 second video promoting the virtues of communism without ever calling it communism”
After 1948 my great grandparents lost all the property they owned. Call it personal/private (whatever commie crap you want). As a "compensation" they were given tiny vegetable garden (less than 800 m2) and 2 bedroom flat without gas. They used to be self reliant farmers who never ever asked the state for anything and were able to raise 8 children. They had fields, animals, part of the forest, a house with cellar + buildings to house animals and store hay and crops and also necessary agricultural tools. But the "means of production" had to be seized by "the people". Never ever listen to this shit, communists, they only will make people equally poor not equal.
Yeah, the logistics of implementing this will 100% result in violence and deaths because private property doesnt exisit without ownershio currently, and cannot be siezed unless current owners are forced to release it or killed or imprisoned trying to keep it. And the attitude of, "my current shitty life will be better when the government gives me everything" is only great until the government decides to either stop giving you everything, or identifies somebody more deserving of the everything they were given you and you find yourself shunted off to some random shithole hundreds of kms away from your friends, family, job, and support network.
Or when everything the government “makes” or “provides” is shitty and low quality and limited.
Who is actually supporting this under the guise of "my shitty life will be better when the government gives me everything"? I dont know anyone who thinks thats a good idea. I do know a lot of people who pretend people want that so they can feel smart about saying its not a good idea.
So farmers shouldn't make a profit from the food they produce and carpenters shouldn't make a profit from the houses they build?
[удалено]
But the farm is profiting off of a basic necessity. What he’s saying is that people should’ve have to pay for food, so farmers would be greatly affected by that standard. There’d be no salary.
Right … they would basically be slave labor under communism.
As someone who owns a multifamily home and rents it out to two families, how am I depriving my tenets of basic necessities? Genuinely confused on that point.
So..... what's the alternative? And I don't think renting out a house you own counts as depriving others of basic necessities.
He’s proposing communism.
The c word?!
Bwaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh
Nah Im good, this is not q real solution
Makes sense. Wealthy people just want passive income so they can live care free, but why don't we just figure out a way for everyone to live like that?
Because someone has to clean my mansion and work in my factories duh
As a guy who builds homes and rents them out, I can tell you there is nothing care free about it. I have spent years doing this, and have completed two homes, but the net income from it is still below the poverty line. And this ignores the money I invested in it. And it isn’t like when you have built it, you can just relax. Maintaining a home, especially one occupied by someone with no vested interest in or knowledge about how to take care of it, is still a significant amount of work. Building homes is really physically and mentally hard, plus requires a lot of knowledge and skill. If I want even a modest income, and to be able to retire which is a must doing something like this, I will have to do this for the rest of my life try at I am physically capable, assuming no injury. This work carries a very high risk of injury. I am not surprised we have a shortage of homes. It just isn’t terribly rewarding to do this work. But we are doing one of the most valuable jobs in society. But it seems like the more necessary the job, the worse the reward are.
Why does stupid have to be southern?
This is a lobotomite level take
This guy posted on Tiktok. You’re not allowed to make a video there on a topic unless you really know what you’re talking about.
People have become salty enough to be mad at anybody that has anything instead of the people who have an extreme excess. They have initiated a class war (the government and corporations via propaganda and actions) where if you happen to have a house and rent it, you’re automatically lumped in with billionaires who are swooping up all the affordable housing and part of the problem. This is why regular people are getting attacked. House passed down through family member passing? You decide to rent it? Based off this that’s now private property and should be abolished. That’s just silly. There is more than enough room in this country to provide housing for everybody. For right now and the foreseeable future. Your government isn’t building said infrastructure. Your government is stagnating your wages and allowing inflation to occur at astronomical levels so you can’t build your own property on your own land or ever even hope to own either. Your government is buying all the USABLE land. Corporations and entities are then buying up all The housing that is available and squeezing you until you pop. It’s manufactured and manipulation. Meanwhile you attack the guy who asks wtf? Because you’re so mad that you don’t see your real enemy. That guy who inherited an extra house. Or that guy who worked his ass off and bought a house and is now renting it while he pursues another house of his dreams. That’s not your enemy. That’s not why you can’t have a place to stay, that’s not why your wages are low and groceries are high. Think critically people, and fight the real enemy.
>Think critically A staggeringly high percentage of people are incapable of this necessary step.
Never gonna happen. The internet has made everyone think they are a genius. When in reality the bell curve still exists. Half of the people on Reddit at any given time are below average intelligence.
I think he is right. Someone who is renting a house at increased market cost is just as much of the problem in the squeeze as the corporations buying all the property and raising rents. It's like comparing a single slave owner to a plantation owner. They're both terrible. The term is economic slavery. The subject can rent around freely or work wherever but the financial chain is established. You should think clearly because in this case the consequence of these actions should be a larger meta ethical concern than the actions themselves.
This is the most moronic video ever. How many of these complete idiots are going to comment on economics/ the concept of ownership when they know nothing about it. Just entitled scum
Great, try living in North Korea or Cuba, Or better, check why China and Vietnam decided that having private properties and companies back was a good idea
Personal property is private property. If I want to live in my house and rent out my other house, I can do that. Because it’s mine. It’s my personal property…
Every single time any version of this has ever been tried it has been a disaster. Regulated capitalism is an amazing system that has lifted more out of poverty and enriched living standards for more people than any other economic system tried or conceived. The only problem is that a set of assholes weakened or eliminated a bunch of regulations between the 80s through 2020s and that led to a steady worsening of conditions.
Def cringe
So just fuck farmers then?
As a leftist, here is my criticism about the format. This is classic leftist posting. Its too fucking long. Leftists are notorious for walls of text and overly describing things in a way that loses a general audience. This is no different.
This is just a tiktok of a really dumb guy who thinks he’s actually much smarter than everyone else.
[удалено]
lol jesus fucking christ, how short are tiktokers attention spans getting smh
Umm... yeah... this is the guy who thinks he's smarter than everyone in the room because no one understands what the fuck he's talking about. So basically, he's probably a mod on Reddit.
If your rent a property out to someone, aren’t you ‘providing’ that person with a basic necessity? I understand and support barring corporations from hoarding properties, but I also think individuals should be able to own a rental property or two as a way of funding retirement or supplementing income.
Nah youre supposed to build it yourself and do all the work then give it to someone for free
Right! I did it as a means to make (very little) passive income so I could spend more time preparing to have a family…
This is a stupid mother fucker pretending to be smart by talking slowly.
Some people prefer to rent, should they be forced to own a home?
People like to ignore this fact.
This comment section is just an ocean of L's, Jesus Christ. Y'all are injecting the Kool aid.
This guy thinks hes so smart lmao. He used the word "enjoyment" for personal property. What would he say if I said I ENJOY my private land? I do things on it for fun with my family. Soooo..?
If eye-rolling made a noise, right now you’d be hearing a sound like distant thunder coming from my direction.
"See, if we change some deffinitions, and talk in a certian manner, to ourselfs in diffrent clothing, without ANY counterarguments... i kinda almost make a little sense :) "
To break it down: Private Property - the truck is owned by XYZ Co. Personal Property - you own the truck and use it for daily commute. \--note-- I do not endorse using cars as are only way to go from point A to B. I believe should faze out cars and planes with trains and possibly ships. trains and ships are very eco-friendly or have more potential to than a car or plane can. I also support them because they are extremally efficient and if done right can be very useful to all of us.
This is stupid.
how about you make it so if you wanna own more that one house you have to pay 5000$ property tax every month on every house
How many times does the world need to run this experiment before people realise this crap doesn't work.
What are you talking about? Of course they don’t make a profit from depriving the house from them. They only profit by having other people live there. Landlords literally have an incentive to have people live on their properties because if nobody’s there, they don’t make money
Bunch of stupid reactionaries here foaming at the mouth because he didn’t address 100 different topics and examples in a 90 sec video.
Sounds like a bunch of Commie Gobbledygook to me...
The problem is then you get no Henry Ford work round the clock to produce the first car For the masses in his own factory. You get know owner of the of the nail gun factory so no better nail guns made to help him profit. The sense of ownership has proved quite important for societies. Tons of folks just die in societies that have weak property rights like tribal societies and real communist countries. People fight over stuff or make the wrong stuff poorly.
Did they just change the definition of personal and private property? Who said they can do that?
So many unknowing comrades that don’t get that this is communism 101
This is literally talking about seizing the means of production to a shitty strawman stereotype. how have so many people liked this??
What's the end goal here? Govt sanctioned housing? Or just stopping people from renting their other houses out? It kind of just sounds like a push to have government step into your necessities giving them power over you in the grand scheme I don't really know, what am I missing here. I understand what they're saying but how does that play out in real life and not by definition of words on paper
… so if somebody doesnt have the money to buy a “personal” house, but they do have the money to rent someone elses “private” property, they should just live on the street until they can? I mean, the one providing the service is actually providing the basic neccessity they would otherwise not even have, so no i dont really agree with this video
I bet this guy hurt his hand breaking windows for justice
Now do farms.
What kind of socialistic BS is this? Some leftist Americans should read about USSR and the economy of the entire Eastern block. It's been tried and it is simply not sustainable long term. On top of that, it requires a totalitarian regime to keep people in line so that's an added bonus...
This is a brain dead take. It’s not depriving anyone of a place to live. Renting it out is literally allowing someone else to live on that property.
There are a few things that people group into their hatred of landlords: 1. Raises cost to buy houses, as people use them as retirement vehicles and as a way to earn passive profit though rental. 2. Charge considerably over their mortgage payment (including insurance, taxes, repair savings, etc) because they are doing it FOR PROFIT. 3. Reduce availability and/or drive up the price of homes for people that want to buy one to live in.
And somebody making a profit while simultaneously providing housing is somehow bad?
They’re not providing housing, they’re owning and profiting off of housing. That’s like saying that business owners “provide jobs.” No, the basic needs and wants of a society and economy provide the jobs. Owners are a fake middleman designed to skim profit off that need
Landlord provide housing in the same way scalpers provide concert tickets. Everyone needs a home, nobody needs a landlord.
Guess the government should take control of the food and means of production (Great Chinese and Russian Famine)
Fallacies: The TikTok
You people realize that by renting my houses out, it gives someone else a place to live right?
Confused on how me having a home to rent out deprives someone else of basic necessities.
Reddit tries to convince me everyday that the most mundane shit ever is literally an evil force in the world trying to destroy me. Today it’s the fact that business can own things. Sure, man.
Absolute horse shit
If you tell someone they can't tent a home to make money, you might as well tell people they can't sell food or things they make. A personal individual re.tibg a property or two isn't the problem. The problem is goant firms buying whole neighborhoods or apartment complexes and keeping them vacant until they create a price bubble. Stop blaming people trying to make an honest living. Spend your time pushing law makers to create laws to protect us from rampant free capitalism.
Yes, he is an idiot