You are not great at logic and analogies, are you?
How does being rude with me, or getting angry at me, solve or change anything? I don’t think it actually helps anything, I don’t think it’s some great sign of intelligence either.
All of them do earn money just by owning property. I’m not calling that evil or good or bad. It is what it is. And I’m sure many landlords are nice enough people. I am against it though.
I’m trying to understand your viewpoint. If not all landlords are bad or evil, why would you be against it? Are you against having to pay for housing? Are you saying that homeowners should rent out spare rooms in their houses for free? Are you against renting in general? What about for people who want the freedom to move from place to place and prefer that renting can provide that?
I’m not even sure where to begin. Neither of those, VPN nor Bitcoin, allow you to earn money simply by owning property. Both of them can be used legally and illegally, but that has nothing to do with landlords which are always able to rent out their property completly legally but are still always being a parasite. I’m not saying renting should be banned because one kind of landlords are evil and the others aren’t. I’m saying the mechanism of profiting off of property while exploiting the need for housing puts all of them on a spectrum between siphoning off a little or siphoning off a lot of the workers income.
I don’t think it’s a bad analogy. Both VPNs and Bitcoin have the same underlying mechanism, they can be used for good (avoiding censorship by authoritarian regimes) and they can be used for bad (doing illegal things). There can be good landlords and there can definitely be bad landlords. Even if it’s not a perfect analogy, it’s still similar enough to show the similarities to your analogy.
If you’re not saying renting should be banned because one kind of landlords are evil and the others aren’t, what are you saying? I don’t understand your position here, sorry. You are calling it “profiting off of property while exploiting the need for housing”, but how can you say that an older man providing a spare room is “exploiting the need for housing” in the same way that bad landlords (such as corporations) that are evil, do the bare minimum, can’t wait for an excuse to jack up rent prices or evict someone for another person who will pay more etc are exploiting the need for housing? How is the older man renting out a spare room considered exploiting the need for housing versus considered providing a place to stay? Would it be better if spare rooms were not up for rent and thus there was even less housing available in a housing crisis?
If renting shouldn’t be banned, what do you propose? Are you really suggesting that homeowners provide spare rooms for people to stay for free, or are you suggesting something else? You’re going to have to explain your thoughts to me if you want me to understand.
How does being rude with me, or getting angry at me, solve or change anything? I don’t think it actually helps anything, I don’t think it’s some great sign of intelligence either.
I’m trying to understand your viewpoint. If not all landlords are bad or evil, why would you be against it? Are you against having to pay for housing? Are you saying that homeowners should rent out spare rooms in their houses for free? Are you against renting in general? What about for people who want the freedom to move from place to place and prefer that renting can provide that?
I don’t think it’s a bad analogy. Both VPNs and Bitcoin have the same underlying mechanism, they can be used for good (avoiding censorship by authoritarian regimes) and they can be used for bad (doing illegal things). There can be good landlords and there can definitely be bad landlords. Even if it’s not a perfect analogy, it’s still similar enough to show the similarities to your analogy.
If you’re not saying renting should be banned because one kind of landlords are evil and the others aren’t, what are you saying? I don’t understand your position here, sorry. You are calling it “profiting off of property while exploiting the need for housing”, but how can you say that an older man providing a spare room is “exploiting the need for housing” in the same way that bad landlords (such as corporations) that are evil, do the bare minimum, can’t wait for an excuse to jack up rent prices or evict someone for another person who will pay more etc are exploiting the need for housing? How is the older man renting out a spare room considered exploiting the need for housing versus considered providing a place to stay? Would it be better if spare rooms were not up for rent and thus there was even less housing available in a housing crisis?
If renting shouldn’t be banned, what do you propose? Are you really suggesting that homeowners provide spare rooms for people to stay for free, or are you suggesting something else? You’re going to have to explain your thoughts to me if you want me to understand.