The usual response to this is that "the landlord manages the property and deserves to earn money". They consider hiring people to do the work to be work itself unfortunately.
That they pay someone else to hire people, or that they pay someone else to do the work of maintaining the property? Because my issue is that they consider paying someone else to do the work to be work itself because they're "managing" things.
if the tenant doesn't pay rent, they don't lose the benefit of the landlord's (or more likely, their hired super's) managerial services; they lose their home. there's no way around it: landlords are leeches who want free stuff for nothing.
Honestly I think you're going at it from the wrong angle. Some people have been fortunate enough to not have to deal with a bad landlord before or have people close to them that are landlords. You won't get traction with these people by coming at them with "landlords are inherently coercive" unless they already resent landlords.
Instead I think you need to hammer home that housing should be a human right, nobody should have to pay for housing. Homelessness kills people. America has more unoccupied homes than homeless people. We absolutely have the resources to house every person in the US, it is the morally correct thing to do. Evictions kill people. By not housing people, we are killing them. Get them on board with "nobody should have to pay for housing" and they will much more easily come to the idea that landlords are parasites.
Ok thank you, this is probably a good idea. I think there are a lot of people who will still object because they believe that someone deserves to make money off the homes, but it is probably an easier approach.
The usual response to this is that "the landlord manages the property and deserves to earn money". They consider hiring people to do the work to be work itself unfortunately.
deleted by creator
That they pay someone else to hire people, or that they pay someone else to do the work of maintaining the property? Because my issue is that they consider paying someone else to do the work to be work itself because they're "managing" things.
deleted by creator
Ah ok, that's fair.
if the tenant doesn't pay rent, they don't lose the benefit of the landlord's (or more likely, their hired super's) managerial services; they lose their home. there's no way around it: landlords are leeches who want free stuff for nothing.
This is actually a nice point. They're not paying for the service, they're paying for housing.
Honestly I think you're going at it from the wrong angle. Some people have been fortunate enough to not have to deal with a bad landlord before or have people close to them that are landlords. You won't get traction with these people by coming at them with "landlords are inherently coercive" unless they already resent landlords.
Instead I think you need to hammer home that housing should be a human right, nobody should have to pay for housing. Homelessness kills people. America has more unoccupied homes than homeless people. We absolutely have the resources to house every person in the US, it is the morally correct thing to do. Evictions kill people. By not housing people, we are killing them. Get them on board with "nobody should have to pay for housing" and they will much more easily come to the idea that landlords are parasites.
Ok thank you, this is probably a good idea. I think there are a lot of people who will still object because they believe that someone deserves to make money off the homes, but it is probably an easier approach.