It seems that all the answers are either:
"ackshually, you need to define the term exploit, this is just a semantic question"
Or "ackshually, not being tethered down is good, because I can move - I like moving all the time."
Or the more honest but naive "some people can't afford to replace a roof or a downpayment so it's good that renting is a thing"
But my favorite is this response to a comrade making a good point about profit being exploitative:
"So the issue I see with this argument is >that it necessarily applies to all products >that sell for above the cost of materials >(and maybe some labor?).
"That seems fine, but then literally all >products/services are exploitative (and >pricing labor gets tricky and can become >exploitative on either end unless it is priced >perfectly)."
You're so close buddy, so close.
<liberal voice> If it were exploitative to extract the surplus of someone else's labor through profit, then there would be no ethical consumption under capitalism
I like how in the last response the answer is literally right there but they can't make the logical conclusion because that would invalidate their entire worldview, and THAT can't be allowed so the logic has to be flawed somehow. Sticking your head in the sand is very standard lib response though, so shouldnt be surprised.
Amazing watching someone bootstrap 95% of the logic underlying the basic problem like that and not get it
ackshually, not being tethered down is good, because I can move - I like moving all the time.
Love to not know whether I will have a place to live in 6 months from now
No workers are really being exploited by a landlord, which is the usual gripe in socialism.
good news everyone, my rent is free, actually. i only just realized this!
rents in my area are 40% of my income
Lucky you, mine's like 55% :sadness:
"Is hoarding an essential resource to steal the fruits of labor from actual workers exploitative? No, it must be the leftists who are wrong"
:mao-aggro-shining:
Landlords don't exploit workers, they sit on their ass and benefit from a system in which the state exploits workers on their behalf. As a liberal, I reject consequentialism as an ethical theory, so I cannot blame landlords for the predictable consequences of their actions.
The signing of a mortgage is ceremonial Magick worked by the bank wherein the signee's signature summons hundreds of thousands of dollars from the aether. In exchange the signee agrees to sacrifice a portion of their life force to the bank until they die. These are just the laws
There's a lot of neoliberal and capitalist landlords down here, so pretty bad, actually.
If we go by the accumulated sin thing of Christianity, then neoliberals and capitalists have racked up a lot of it, even the ones that aren't :epstein: related. If we go by the various religions that use karma (or analogues), same problem.
Maybe there's a loophole for eternal communism - just be an evil capitalist in life.
The thing I hate most is how these discussions always get reduced to individual choice arguments about renting vs buying rather than the real question of renting or buying vs redistribution and free housing.
Sidebar rule...
Announcement: User flair is required.
Such subs are always shit.
New app idea. You push a button and it finds all of those posters and a donkey stomps on them like a coyote. Stomp stomp stomp until they no longer post. It costs $5 and I just need a programmer who will work for exposure.
