LogFAQs > #950676129

scar the 1 posted...

...this has been addressed so many times. The upkeep and custodianship of buildings is a valuable service that should be compensated fairly. No one is arguing otherwise. The problem people have with landlords is not that they charge for such services. And providing those services are not integral to being a landlord. Yes, in some countries landlords are responsible for those things. That's because the law prohibits them from more blatant exploitation, not because it's something that's inherent to being a landlord. Being a landlord, by definition, is when you hoard housing you don't personally need and you use it to exploit people and make a profit.

While similar, the need for temporary housing like hotels is different from the basic human right to a home. I would still say that your intent to make a profit from just owning something is exploitative inherently, but the people you're looking to exploit "can take it", in a sense. But of course it's a bit of a different issue than landlords and the solutions to it don't necessarily have to be the same. I suppose one could argue that you'd be doing a mild form of imperialism, since you're laying claim to a foreign resource and use it to make money.

Which is why I suggested more laws to help renters, rather than "abolish landlords" with no real solution as an alternative.

The more I read these posts though, the more it seems like your issue is with landlords that own and rent out, single family homes. What about the ones that own apartment complexes? Do you have the same issue with those landlords?

---

Formerly ox0Shadow0xo | PSN - NoxObscuras
i7-7700K | EVGA 3080 FTW3 Ultra | 32GB DDR4 | 4TB SSD