> Holding housing for others in the community is an incredibly pro-social thing to do.
Pro-somebody, but not pro-social, which I think means something like "indiscriminately helpful", or at least "helpful to people who are helpful to people." But this sounds like a terrible, invisible form of exploitation--not letting a landlord put a house on the market, not giving anyone who isn't in this particular peer group a chance at it. It sounds like using the power of the state to ensure that your peer group pockets the difference between the market price and the legally-enforced rent ceiling. All done in a way that no one outside the peer group can ever detect, so no one will interfere with it. Am I missing something? Do these houses tend to always be rented by people of the same age, and the same politics, who hang out at the same places?
California doesn't really believe in landlords having rights to their property. It's basically the state's property once you put it up for rent, and as the landlord you get to keep a little bit of income in exchange for taking on the risk and sinking your capital. The landlord should expect to never have control of the property again. I don't understand why a private landlord would ever rent to someone who isn't a very closely trusted ally.
That being said, one of the best things that could happen would be for the property to fall into the hands of a conscientious and functional community that wants to keep it in good repair and keep decent relations with the landlord. Given the existence of the laws here, this is the least bad outcome for a landlord, and it's what I would want if I rented out property here. Which I won't, because this state is insane.
It does mean that people outside of the community won't have access to that housing until it falls back into the general populace, yeah. I can only speculate that this is how California intends to incentivize people into self-organizing into orderly communities, since the government won't keep order in the traditional ways.
I find parallels between people arguing in favor of death as a way to give meaning to life and this post.
In both cases we don’t have a short term solution (yet) and… sour grapes. Will be getting rationalists being cryopreserved while waiting for a flat in Berkeley?
One day we will defeat awful parasitic governance. Probably we'll defeat death first tbh. But this one is in the crosshairs of social initiatives for life improvement!
Still, I do wonder what we'll do when all problems are solved. It really does draw people together to have adversity like this. Often the things you think you want you don't really want. I discovered this via Warcraft. All the Quality-of-Life improvements destroyed the game. People have become so rich and entertained that we don't need each other and are completely isolated. Maybe this is bad for baseline humans.
> Holding housing for others in the community is an incredibly pro-social thing to do.
Pro-somebody, but not pro-social, which I think means something like "indiscriminately helpful", or at least "helpful to people who are helpful to people." But this sounds like a terrible, invisible form of exploitation--not letting a landlord put a house on the market, not giving anyone who isn't in this particular peer group a chance at it. It sounds like using the power of the state to ensure that your peer group pockets the difference between the market price and the legally-enforced rent ceiling. All done in a way that no one outside the peer group can ever detect, so no one will interfere with it. Am I missing something? Do these houses tend to always be rented by people of the same age, and the same politics, who hang out at the same places?
California doesn't really believe in landlords having rights to their property. It's basically the state's property once you put it up for rent, and as the landlord you get to keep a little bit of income in exchange for taking on the risk and sinking your capital. The landlord should expect to never have control of the property again. I don't understand why a private landlord would ever rent to someone who isn't a very closely trusted ally.
That being said, one of the best things that could happen would be for the property to fall into the hands of a conscientious and functional community that wants to keep it in good repair and keep decent relations with the landlord. Given the existence of the laws here, this is the least bad outcome for a landlord, and it's what I would want if I rented out property here. Which I won't, because this state is insane.
It does mean that people outside of the community won't have access to that housing until it falls back into the general populace, yeah. I can only speculate that this is how California intends to incentivize people into self-organizing into orderly communities, since the government won't keep order in the traditional ways.
A similar situation occurs in the Roaring Fork Valley where I live. Feudalism always finds a way.
I find parallels between people arguing in favor of death as a way to give meaning to life and this post.
In both cases we don’t have a short term solution (yet) and… sour grapes. Will be getting rationalists being cryopreserved while waiting for a flat in Berkeley?
One day we will defeat awful parasitic governance. Probably we'll defeat death first tbh. But this one is in the crosshairs of social initiatives for life improvement!
Still, I do wonder what we'll do when all problems are solved. It really does draw people together to have adversity like this. Often the things you think you want you don't really want. I discovered this via Warcraft. All the Quality-of-Life improvements destroyed the game. People have become so rich and entertained that we don't need each other and are completely isolated. Maybe this is bad for baseline humans.