And in any case, owning sucks if you're not sure you have a stable job and won't need to move or just get wanderlust. It makes you like my parents, it ties you to one place forever
-
Show this thread
-
The idea that housing is a service you pay for is not actually obscene, as long as there are methods for helping people who can't pay (which collective ownership doesn't address directly either). Building equity in a thing isn't, like, a human right.
4 replies 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @BootlegGirl
The framing is wrong. In the same way that "medical insurance" exists to deny coverage, not to provide it, the landlords-and-tenants model exists to deny housing, not to provide it. Like how mana in video games exists specifically to make mana management an issue for the player.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @autogynamelia @BootlegGirl
Can we agree that there are going to be problems no matter who owns the housing? Because it seems like there are. Collective decision-making doesn't automatically correct prejudices and leaves plenty of room for personality conflicts I understand the worry here
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @jmatonak @BootlegGirl
Yes, there are going to be problems, but under out current system we literally have more empty homes than we have homeless people. The for-profit model doesn't produce humane results, so maybe we should try something else instead of just acting like this is the way it has to be.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Nobody here is saying the current system is good. Only that *a* system which still included renting would not be inherently bad
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes -
Also there's a big difference between thinking something will NEVER be possible and thinking it isn't possible *right now*, or that it can't be reached quickly and without intermediate steps
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Some things are in fact complicated enough that they CAN'T be done all at once without screwing something up catastrophically. Others simply require more consensus than can be attained in a single election, even if every open seat moved left
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
I would argue that big sweeping change is the only thing that works. It's taken conservatives decades to dismantle the New Deal, while stuff like DACA didn't survive past a single executive term.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's taken conservatives decades to get to where they can dismantle the New Deal and survive it politically. Dozens of ultra rich diehards created entire media empires dedicated to it I'd love some sweeping change and think we should aim for it, but we need more than belief here
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes
Yeah doesn't this argument contradict itself The conservatives *were* acting incrementally in order to do *bad* things and... it's been working Remember there was a time when the Republican President said Social Security and other New Deal programs were absolutely untouchable
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @FartCaptor and
Anyway re: housing specifically this is one of those interesting things FDR really did want widespread public housing as part of his New Deal People thought of it as a natural extension of the other GI Bill benefits after the war, there was no better time to pass it
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @FartCaptor and
But Truman caved on it The conservatives won that argument, that that was going too far, even for an America that was as public-spirited and collective-minded as it had ever been after winning WWII The American Dream is *owning* your house
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.