Is it morally justifiable to force real estate owners to house the poor?

>Poor people get government benefits
>They spend those benefits in the local economy

Yeah they are a drain!

this The government could present real estate agents with a little badge called "ethical building management certificate" or something, which means while the buildings are sitting empty they allow squatters to stay in the garage or some other difficult to damage/stain room and get some tax deducted for doing so. Kind of like the "fair trade" label on choccos.

However Corbyn doesn't care about practical solutions, first and foremost on his mind is rabble rousing and gaining votes.

The sole fact that poor and rich people exist is immoral

No, forcing someone to do anything isn't moral

Why would anyone invest in housing under that sort of policy?

Tax cuts and brownie points.

Its fine. Owning real estate is not the same as owning land. Unless you have allodial title you dont actually own it, you own the right to use it, as granted by the true owner. Be that some local government or monarch or what-have-you.

I dont know who owns it in the UK but its probably still the queen, shes actually the largest land owner on the planet.

What is immoral is denying someone the freedom to accumulate wealth.

Why not just give poor people money which they could spent on housing, instead of attempting to create elaborate tax tricks to make house owners rent below market value?

This. Muslim colonizers should be sterilized and sent home.

They do. The problem is that there's currently no officially available property near the tower that burned down.

Immorality is allowing someone to accumulate wealth through someone else's misery.

Why? The rich person is denying others freedom to accumulate wealth by that logic.

>Go look at apex predators in the jungle or the ocean. You don't see them holding hands with weak and pathetic animals. You kill or be killed.
most apex predators are endagered species and only exist because mankind puts a lot of effort into preserving them

I think it should be goverments job, not estate owners

do you believe every rich person accumulated wealth on someones else's misery?

Only if you believe that wealth can only be acquired at the expense of others.

No, denying someone's freedom to accumulate wealth and not giving free money to people with less money are not the same thing.

only a fool believes wealth and resources are infinite

wealth = resources + manpower
even if the resources are limited, more wealth can be created through investing futher manpower

Why would you believe otherwise?

Resources are finite, by accumulating resources you're actively preventing others from getting them.

replace "the poor" in this post with "the bourgeois" and it becomes completely correct

Give an example of a voluntary nonfraudulent transaction between 2 mentally healthy unintoxicated individuals that causes misery.

note: pre-existing misery doesn't count.
What do you mean? They may be denying them their wealth but not their freedom to accumulate it.

Removing all the poor from society is like removing all the prey from the ecosystems your apex predators feed upon. There's a reason the elites are busy importing more of those people.

Social darwinists are fucking retarded I swear.

I don't have enough Striner pictures for this thread

I don't think his idea will eventually be an effective method though rich people using homes as speculations and 'investments' are a real issue and I am glad Corbyn is pointing that out.

how do you explain world wide gdp growth?

-Any transaction between an electronics manufacturer and a Chinese factory.

-From 2009 to present a british-danish surveillance company sold NSA-tier equipment to the Saudi Arabian monarchy. Allowing easy mass surveillance and potential persecution of people being critical of the monarchy.

do you believe the chinese factory workers would be better off without work?

Removed from society by who? the big bad gubmint? Are "the strong" going to waste all their own resource on this retarded culling you've come up with? Who are going to be the ones manning the gas chambers, some fucking rich yuppie? When are you going to get your ticket?

>Is it morally justifiable to force white middle class citizens to house illegal muslim immigrants and black refugees?

Technological advancement allow us to exploit more resources more efficiently.

So we agree that wealth can not only be acquired at the expense of others, since it's possible to create wealth through inventions and technological progress?

Yes, but not when it includes them losing the basic necessities the work provides.

You're asking the wrong questions.

1) Is it useful?
2) Is it feasible?
3) Is it righteous?

The question you're asking falls under category three without having ticked the other boxes.

Indeed. We need to destroy the bottom 20 percent of society anytime it emerges

>what is intensive growth

but that's exactly what would happen if the chinese factory workers lost their jobs
they would be forced to either beg, steal or starve

To a degree. Technology allows for more resources but only to an extent. It doesn't progress infinitely fast. There's still a lot of scarcity in modern societies, hence poverty.

In any society were resources are finite, someone will always be screwed over.

My relatively unspooked nigga

so the statement "The sole fact that poor and rich people exist is immoral" is not absolutely true, since it is possible (at least to a degree) to create wealth without exploitation. Do we agree?

Do you believe that they enjoy working 18 hours a day for close to no money? Do corporations not have a responsibility when their profit is maintaining wage slavery?

kurtzgesagt have made an interesting video on this subject.

I never said that, you're quoting someone else.

And no, it's not immoral in the sense that morality is irrelevant. I'm simply describing what will inevitably happen assuming scarcity and social hierarchies. Whether you consider that moral or not is up to you.

it's not morally justifiable to either let them not go housed or spend taxpayer money housing them when there's perfectly capable empty housing available restricted only by a social construct, no

>Do you believe that they enjoy working 18 hours a day for close to no money?
I do believe they enjoy it more than starving.

>Do corporations not have a responsibility when their profit is maintaining wage slavery?
in past decades tens of millions of chinese were lifted from absolute poverty. without corporation building factories in china, this would never have happend

Is that what he asked you? No? Then why did you say it? Who, exactly, did Bill Gates unfairly acquire his money from?

...

>theweakshouldfearthestrong.png
>absolutist and generalizing
>bullshit analogy with nature
16 year old, the post.

There is no wealth generation without exploitation. You pay someone the value they create and you make no money.

No. Private property is private property.

if they dont need you, why didn't they create the value without you?

A hard "no" if the advocates of such don't even do as much on their own dime. If they put their money where their mouth is then there may be something worth discussing.

>There is no wealth generation without exploitation. You pay someone the wealth they generate...
???

> I don't know how society or nature work. I am completely illiterate in ecology, economics, psychology and ethology. I am also devoid of empathy and basic human feelings. Hahaha i was just trolling guise..

The only thing that needs to be removed from society is (You).

Strength is always with the masses.

.

>crash into an expensive car with a lot people in it.
>lose everything
really makes you think

It is if "the rich" are banks and crony firms buying up all the empty and foreclosed properties and sitting on them while they rot.

>Only apex predators should be allowed in the Jungle
>removes all non-apex predators
>apex preadators become cannibals and die off

The fact that there are people living on the streets of london despite there being empty property is a fucking disgrace, Houses shouldn't be wealth stores, they should be fucking houses.

This raises a larger question.

Is speculation in commodities a form of rent seeking?

so? it's their property. I can physically store my wealth in gold but I can't do it in houses?

2/10 got me to reply

Give them all the empty apartments the Saudis are using to launder money and drive up the price of real estate.

Yes, because you holding that gold is not depriving anyone else of a basic life nessecity, which is not consumed when used, beyond that the only reason your house holds any value and can't just be stolen outright is that the government enacts law to ensure your right to property is respected, having a right to property is not a right to a lack of interference from the government on your unused non consumable property, especially if your fellow citizens are suffering and could have their suffering prevented to no detriment to yourself.

This.

the act of buying several houses isn't actively denying anyone of a home more than if I have a full pantry of food I'm not going to eat all of while children are starving in Africa. Is the government going to raid my pantry to feed my neighbors after a local flood? not to mention that these are wealthy estates, not homes that the poor would be able to afford if they were on the market.

The real estate industry needs to be done away with and land use and residential construction need to be heavily regulated, communist style. It only leads to continuous bubbles and always reaches an unavoidable breaking point that ends violently. In the future it may come to be seen as one of the most glaring abuses of our society. Hopefully the future will bring more minimalist and versatile solutions.

>the act of buying several houses isn't actively denying anyone of a home
It actually is, since the more houses you buy the more the price of another house go up.

so buying up mansions off the market causes the price of small flats to go up?

Leave Ireland then you hun

So magic, then. You want to magic material goods to all the people of the world.

We are talking about flats here, not mansions

>the act of buying several houses isn't actively denying anyone of a home
If you don't plan to sell those houses or rent them out, then yes, you are depriving people of completely livable homes, this is a genuine problem in london.
>more than if I have a full pantry of food I'm not going to eat all of while children are starving in Africa. Is the government going to raid my pantry to feed my neighbors after a local flood?
Food is consumable, once it is used it is gone, housing is not.
>not to mention that these are wealthy estates, not homes that the poor would be able to afford if they were on the market.
These are wealthy estates with no tenants, and whether or not the people displaced by a fire caused by government failure to ensure actual fire saftey standards are adhered to and that public services recieve adequete equipment to do their fucking jobs properly are wealthy enough to be housed in uninhabited homes worth money only because of the security provided by the government is fucking absurd, these people almost died due to shitty checks caused by Britain's low as fuck relative tax rates, the very fucking least the rich can do is briefly surrender their unihabited property they don't plan to ever use for housing.

No, and Corbyn did himself a severe disservice with voicing that comment and then later re-affirming it.

There is room enough for the Grenfell Tower residents elsewhere in the city to accommodate them until they are rehoused. He wanted to appropriate the empty properties of the rich in the same neighbourhood to give to the Grenfell Tower residents for use, permanently, so that they could live in the same area. It's class politics at its finest and Corbyn is a bloody fool for advocating such an action. Property is only to be requisitioned when there is an over-riding government need, such as during wartime or if a vital infrastructure project cannot be realistically rerouted elsewhere. It is not so that you can make residents who befell a tragedy take up richer lodgings to score political and humanitarian points.

>plant seed in ground
>water it
>harvest crop
>create wealth for myself

Fuck I'm exploiting myself

>How would you like it if some communist meanie from the government came and took a small fragment of some of the wealth you accrued through either hard work or sheer treachery, after possibly having or not having risen from squalid poverty yourself, and gave it to destitute displacees.
Every laissez-faireist argument ever.

On what land and how much do you pollute?

On my land somewhere in the boonies of Siberia and I don't pollute in the slightest by using traditional farming techniques. How exactly am I exploiting myself or someone else?

I find the statement that 'You pay someone the value they create and you make no money' to be totally absurd in general btw, even applied to other circumstances, not least because it ignores numerous other factors such as risk taken, capital invested to make a particular person as productive as they are, intellectual property and so on. Let's say you're Bill Gates and you've just created an operating system, Windows. You need to purchase computers to run your operating system on, so you establish a factory to produce computers at $300 per. Ignoring marketing and distribution for a moment, you combine it with your operating system and sell it at $900/model to the public. The public believes that price is a good price and purchase it, increasing their own productivity several times over. In this scenario, factory jobs are created for the people who need them and they make money whereas they would have been making none or less; you, Bill Gates, make money on account of your intellectual property turning the computer into something actually useful; and the public make money by using your machine to increase their own productivity. Wealth has clearly been generated here, yet no one is being exploited and everyone is paid exactly what they value of their work is worth, and without the other components their own produce would be useless.

Or another straightforward example, you're a geologist and you prospect some hills and come to the conclusion that a gold vein likely exists beneath the hills. You stake a claim and hire some miners, paying them $10,000 to blow a hole in the hill. They do so, you discover a gold vein, and sell the mining rights to a conglomerate for a boatload of money, as you lack the capital to mine and smelt gold. Who's being exploited here?

The country and the residents are having their nations wealth pocketed and seeing little or no return which is often the case. As for the computer bit sure it may work for a while initially but what happens when society becomes dependent on it and companies wield there power through monopolies?

Private property is a spook

Poverty is relativistic dumbass

Why is the British left so problematic?

Apex predators are not energy efficient (especially if they are warm-blooded) and are generally the first animals to go extinct.

Britian's left is pretty unsavory but the politics of the right are pretty shit too.

Probably because of all the rasheeds who vote labour

property is theft

No.
Moreso in first world countries.

wtf I love corbyn now

Is this entire board commies and nazi larpers throwing out the most logic devoid arguments and hoping something sticks?

There shouldn't be real estate "owners", they're literal leeches.

Also landlords just burnt hundreds of britcucks alive ISIS-style, I hope Brits have the balls to strike back.