it’s only “radical” from the narrow perspective of the last few hundred years of western capitalism.
> Say he was a high-ranking professional or a successful entrepreneur and he used the capital he earned to buy a building - what's immoral here exactly?
he’s using his capital to extract more wealth from those with fewer resources than himself. (that’s also how he accumulated the capital in the first place — but that’s another conversation.)
> Your example doesn’t really make sense - someone living paycheck to paycheck would default on a mortgage even if they got one. It’s for those people that renting makes the most sense.
you just made my point for me — there is a class of the population that is forced into spending a third (often more!) of their income on housing, which is being hoarded by another class. no different from a feudal serf being forced to turn over their hard-won harvest to the nobility. but sure, they can go find another manor to live on, they’re under no obligation to give their labor to this particular lord...
> If being a landlord is so easy, why wouldn't everyone do it?
maybe just sit and think about this one for a minute?
the answer is that they don't have the capital, which is why it's a relationship of exploitation. by virtue of owning more capital than me, my landlord feels entitled to the fruit of my own labor. it's just feudalism in a new garb, as reflected in the terms we use (landlord/lady)
that work is done by maintenance workers — unless the landlord is personally out performing all the repairs, in which case they deserve to be compensated for their labor like anyone else. as mentioned below, the maintenance workers mysteriously aren't the ones entitled to a third of my paycheck...
secondly, ask anyone who's ever rented — landlords are notoriously awful at keeping up with maintenance. so if we're considering it a job, then they get paid far more for doing far worse work than any other occupation i can think of. does that not make you angry?
> I am hardcore free market fundamentalist, but profit motive should not come anywhere near healthcare.
> Government intervention in healthcare won't fix healthcare. Instead, it will give you Obamacare. Fix the cultural values, and the healthcare problem (along with other problems) will fix themselves.
so healthcare shouldn't be provided by private industry, but also not by the government... so, what? non-profit orgs only?
and what risk is that? if the company goes under, they need to get a job like everyone else. the only “risk” is that they no longer get to be the big boss. cry me a river.
meanwhile they get to reap (in this case) 100% of the rewards from everyone else’s hard work. if that doesn’t make you angry, perhaps you should reevaluate whose interests your ideology serves.
never said anything about rights. but it sounds like came in with an attitude of condescension, disrespect, and antagonism. i don't see why you'd expect them to respond with good will
> Political note: calls for nationalisation, in American politics, is a gift to the other side.
Perhaps you should rephrase this as "calls for nationalization run counter to my own free-market ideology" rather than a) assuming you know what everybody else thinks, and b) suggesting that conventional wisdom should dictate the bounds of acceptable discourse.
Not to mention, plenty of countries — the US included — have successfully nationalized companies and entire industries.
> Say he was a high-ranking professional or a successful entrepreneur and he used the capital he earned to buy a building - what's immoral here exactly?
he’s using his capital to extract more wealth from those with fewer resources than himself. (that’s also how he accumulated the capital in the first place — but that’s another conversation.)