you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 year ago (20 children)

I completely disagree with this.

First, having rentals available is a necessity. There are plenty of people who simply do not want the responsibility, or need the flexibility to move more easily than owning allows for (like university students and people moving around for jobs). If rental units are needed, someone has to be a landlord to provide that.

Second, choosing to significantly impact your own own life because of country-wide problems is heroic, but fucking useless. The change in this space will not come from all landlords all choosing to be better people. That's never going to happen, and if you think that's an option you're the one being ignorant. The only realistic way this housing situation changes is if the laws change, and the laws change when voters pick politicians who will change them.

The only time this person is a hypocrite is if they say they want to fix the problem, but then do not vote for the person who will fix it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    An addition to this statement as well. People always seem to find renting and owning as two polar opposites, but this doesn't have to be the case. A landlord can also do something called rent to own, car dealerships do the same. It's where you can rent for as long as you want, and it is known up front that the rent payments partially contribute towards the cost of the loan, eventually the amount paid via rental is equal to the market value(plus usually whatever the landlord stated they wanted their profit of it being) or a big enough prepayment to be able to afford an actual loan or full payment on it, and at that point the deed/title is transferred over to the renters(or the loan company if they went that route). It's an alternative to getting a mortgage, and it benefits both parties because the renter could decide to leave any time (once their current lease expires or unless stated otherwise) and the landlord is still getting their profits (and in many cases a higher profit due to the way it works). Generally speaking with these types of agreements though, the rental cost is higher than others to make up for the downpayment as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's not really an in-between, You're still a renter and usually get no benefit if you fail to reach the specific criteria in the allotted time. It really doesn't solve anything other than issues with credit scores or available down payments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    It helps you when you are not sure if you want the building or not though, since it lets you start the process without locking yourself into a long term commitment. Additionally not all rent to own have a specific timeframe to pay it. Many are just cumulative and can be bailed whenever the leases run out, and the only thing the renter is out of is the extra money paid.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (16 children)

    Okay buddy imma just go around murdering people. Which is fine and morally correct because I vote anti murder. And yes, me murdering people and then voting "don't murder" isn't hypocritical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (15 children)

    Your argument is weak.

    There's already a law that says "Murder is bad, go to Jail" so no it's not fine, and society deemed it morally incorrect.

    Society has not yet agreed that renting to people is morally incorrect, that's why it's still legal and why millions of people are landlords.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    laws have nothing to do with morality. laws protect the powerful and the at social institutions that made them powerful. the fact that private property laws exist means powerful people depend on private property to maintain power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    Morality is determined by society. Society has not agreed that being a landlord is immoral.

    Very few people want to eliminate rentals altogether. You can go look at polls, even the polls where you find the most support for restrictions only want secondary rental homes to be taxed higher.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    can you tell me what ethical system says morality determined by society? it's been a few years since my philosophy degree, and it wasn't specialized in ethics, but I seem to remember moral relativism as being universally appalling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    "universally appalling" despite it literally having supporters arguing over it for over a thousand years...

    Just because your class of idealist youth didn't like it doesn't make it universally appalling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Your question didn't require an answer, since it answered itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    so you're saying it's just straight up moral relativism, a theory of ethics that doesn't actually allow any questioning of morality, like divine command theory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's only one variation of moral relativism. It is, as most things in ethics are, not black and white.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    your version is no more defensible than divine command theory, and it's totally useless for debating what we ought to think is moral.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Lol. Slavery was morally correct because it was legal too I'm guessing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    At the time, yes, trying to run a commercial farm without slaves while you tried to get the laws changed would have been completely reasonable.

    Morality is not absolute, its situational and relative. Applying modern morals to judge the past is an effort in stupidity.

    "I wouldn't have done that" yes you definitely would have, because you would have been raised to do that.

    There are things you do today that future generations will judge you as immoral for doing that you think are perfectly fine.

    Do you think eating animals is acceptable? Future generations may think you just as barbaric for allowing that as you think people were for allowing human slaves. Or maybe they're fine with eating meat, but they will think you barbaric for allowing paid healthcare to exist and people to suffer because they're poor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments