171
submitted 8 months ago by tkk13909@sopuli.xyz to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Does having an AirBNB setup make someone deserving of the guillotine or does that only apply to owners of multiple houses? What about apartments?

Please explain your reasoning as well.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You are not creating Value by allowing someone to use a room for a fee. This is just using the already created Value to rent-seek.

Using a room to rent out becomes Private Property, not Personal Property.

[-] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago

Official Communist stance: there is zero distinction between personal property and private property. Hand over you toothbrush.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's the People's Democratic Toothbrush, thank you very much. Now do 100 push-ups for Dialectical Materialism and become a Professional Letarian, a Pro-Letarian if you will, comrade! /s

[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 5 points 8 months ago

You are not creating Value by allowing someone to use a room for a fee.

You created value when you made the room suitable for someone else’s use rather than your own. The room was not available and now it is. Value is an output, and the room didn’t intrinsically have value.

This is just using the already created Value to rent-seek.

Your understanding of rent-seeking is not one I’ve seen literally anywhere else. What’s the basis for that?

Using a room to rent out becomes Private Property, not Personal Property.

How so?

[-] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

You created value when you made the room suitable for someone else’s use rather than your own.

The "Value" of the room was created when it was constructed and taxed. The "additional value" of a remodel will be reflected in the tax statements and property value (which is usually a return when sold). The room always had value, just not as a business asset which you want. These comments and the ones below are some of the craziest mental gymnastics I've seen this year. "but the landlord is my hero and stopped me from freezing by charging me 150% on the only place I can afford because all the real mean landlords took all the other houses". It's a scam, a con. A lord and serf arrangement carried on through centuries of oppression. It's a grift, has been since it's inception. Which came first, a house or a landlord? Which one was necessary and which one was created with excess capital that was distributed unequally?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

There's no new value being created, the room was created once. Renting it out takes no labor, it isn't a service, it is literally just seeking income from ownership. "Value" isn't some mystical thing, it's a measure of inputs and outputs, and in the case of renting a room out, there are no new inputs.

It becomes Private Property the second you become a landlord and rent-seek. Rather than using it for yourself, you seek value from ownership.

I'm using fairly standard understandings of rent-seeking, pretending that allowing someone else to use something you own via a fee is providing a service is landlord justification, it isn't a service.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 2 points 8 months ago

So there is absolutely no value to let someone else have a place to sleep safely?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

No, there is no "value" being created by it. Value isn't a representation of "good" or "bad," but an expression of inputs and outputs, the inputs being labor and natural resources, and the outputs being Value itself.

The idea that someone can rent out housing and yet never lose ownership of the principle and thus perpetually gain money simply because they had more money in the beginning creates no new Value, and is thus rent-seeking.

[-] luthis@lemmy.nz -1 points 8 months ago

Pretty sure you could count not freezing to death, having a space to keep your things safe, health, stability etc as a value output.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

Did you read my comment? Value is an output measured by inputs, ie labor and natural resources, not how "desirable" or "good" a concept is.

All of what you listed is absolutely a good thing, but isn't value. Value is used for commodities, not what is individually a good thing.

this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
171 points (82.0% liked)

Asklemmy

44135 readers
1223 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS