Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.blahaj.zone

3 replies

katiecakes
lemmy.blahaj.zone

The erosion of property rights over much of the last hundred years has worked to the great detriment of the poor and disadvantaged. Strengthening those rights could do much to enhance liberty and opportunity for the least well-off, and to boost economic growth and innovation in society generally.

Ok, read the whole thing. This was never once addressed. How does private property help, in any way, the poor and disadvantaged?

It never once addresses VC and funds like Blackrock mass-buying private property and forcing a predominantly rental based market to extract capital from the lower class, preventing them from ownership. Instead, it leans on zoning (??) as a primary problem in access to property.

And most egregious, it never once discusses how private property is ethical on stolen, native land. The entire US, and many other countries. (I'm not American.)

Anyways, I just really don't get it.

1
Florencia (she/her)reply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

How does private property help, in any way, the poor and disadvantaged?

If poor and disadvantaged have no right to private property then they'll be worse off. The entire page is about private property.

He probably didn't bring up mass-buying private property because it's effect is a myth. Institutional investors only own 1-3% of private family homes. Zoning Laws (NIMBY) have a bigger effect when we can't build houses & apartments fast enough to supply houses to meet demand.

And most egregious, it never once discusses how private property is ethical on stolen, native land. The entire US, and many other countries. (I’m not American.)

What should we do about that?

1

You reached the end