Go to footer

Skip to content


Housing

No-particular-theme discussion board.

Moderators: Yarrow, Yuda, Canteloupe


Re: Housing

Postby Isaac. » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:26 pm

public transit is bad on two counts, one is that any centralized system will be vulnerable to centralized failures, secondly it places the liberties of the individual second to whoever runs the transit system.

As far as everyone should own a townhouse, Non-sense, if I walk into the woods with an ax and build a mansion out of logs, than that's my mansion. Saying that everyone should do this, that, or the other is just as draconian and authoritarian as the state and it doesn't matter if it's "society" or some other entity that is imposing such rules.


but then again, I'm the crazy who thinks that if you just gave everyone guns and a little bit of education (not even directly related to anarchy, but instead to self-sufficency), that they'd be able to figure out things from there.
Isaac.
Swivel-Hips
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:07 pm


Re: Housing

Postby Infinite » Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:38 pm

This is actually what it says:

"Housing

Housing will be socialized by the abolition of rents. Rental housing will be maintained by renters committees who will coordinate their needs [safety, sanitation, maintenance] through a community renters association. Slum housing and illegal units like garage conversions will be made habitable. Rich peoples housing will be subdivided into apartments or torn down so apartments can be constructed. Communities will build enough housing each year to eliminate/avoid overcrowding. New housing should not be built on land with natural or toxic hazards.

It will be more economical to build apartments than single family housing [suburban sprawl be impractical]. Some communities may build townhouses, co-housing, elderly, or other variations. Some single family neighborhoods will survive. People who work in the community will have a priority for living in new housing."

http://workersolidarity.org/?p=436
Infinite
Swivel-Hips
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 6:39 am


Re: Housing

Postby Infinite » Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:14 pm

Isaac. wrote:public transit is bad on two counts, one is that any centralized system will be vulnerable to centralized failures, secondly it places the liberties of the individual second to whoever runs the transit system.

As far as everyone should own a townhouse, Non-sense, if I walk into the woods with an ax and build a mansion out of logs, than that's my mansion. Saying that everyone should do this, that, or the other is just as draconian and authoritarian as the state and it doesn't matter if it's "society" or some other entity that is imposing such rules.


but then again, I'm the crazy who thinks that if you just gave everyone guns and a little bit of education (not even directly related to anarchy, but instead to self-sufficency), that they'd be able to figure out things from there.


It's funny to me how most anti-authoritarian/imperialist people tend to be collectivist, because to me collectivism is at the root of so many of our problems and individualism, rebelling from the imposed popular line and 'thinking for yourself' is the solution. If everyone was an individualist and thought for themselves no one would buy into things like nationalism and religious ideologies that are the cause of conflict and war. Those are collectivist ideologies, so I don't see how more collectivist ideologies are the solution. True individualism is the realization that you don't have the right to impose on the rights of others so exploitation cannot be blamed on it i.m.o. That American capitalism is individualist is the propaganda used to sell it in my opinion and not accurate. A true individualist would not wave a flag except maybe a black one, but not a national flag
Infinite
Swivel-Hips
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 6:39 am


Re: Housing

Postby Isaac. » Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:14 pm

Worker Solidarity wrote:Housing will be socialized by the abolition of rents. Rental housing will be maintained by renters committees who will coordinate their needs [safety, sanitation, maintenance] through a community renters association.


why not just build buildings and facilities with low maintenance requirements and have "tenants" who simply adhere to the boy scout philosophy of "leave your environment better than you found it"..... seems a lot simpler...... but if you look at rent the way I do, as an alternative to an extended stay hotel, than paying rent isn't nearly as objectionable. What is still highly objectionable is property tax.


Slum housing and illegal units like garage conversions will be made habitable.


illegal? who is going to deem them illegal in lieu of the state? Slum housing, I am all for giving the "tenants" "ownership" of the property, but if they want to clean the place up that needs to be up to them.


Rich peoples housing will be subdivided into apartments or torn down so apartments can be constructed.


the simple fact is that without wage slavery, most truly exorbitant housing will not be able to be maintained without being made to accommodate significantly more residences. If someone manages to do so without accommodating more residences, I don't think it'd be hurting anyone to let them......


Communities will build enough housing each year to eliminate/avoid overcrowding. New housing should not be built on land with natural or toxic hazards.


eliminate everywhere with earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods or mud slides and you are left with just about nowhere..... you need to learn to live with your environment, with it's hazards man made or natural, not seal off the parts you don't like.


It will be more economical to build apartments than single family housing [suburban sprawl be impractical]. Some communities may build townhouses, co-housing, elderly, or other variations. Some single family neighborhoods will survive. People who work in the community will have a priority for living in new housing


the economics argument is bunk, it's one of the gravest fallacies I see being committed by people on so many different sides of any argument. Yes, economics matter a lot. Without any sort of economy the only ones who will survive are the ones who are able to meet all their needs without relying on anyone. It doesn't matter if you're economy is denominated in trust and good faith in your neighbor or cold hard cash or just knowing that your wife won't put out if you don't provide, without economy 95% of everyone will die. That being said, I don't think there is a single measure of the economy that can tell you anything of meaning. People talk about PPP/capita, which would seem to get past a lot of the problems of straight GDP, but the problem is that if you have a few people buying a whole shit load of weapons with which to oppress the vast majority, you still end up with good PPP/capita, but in a couple years the economy will implode because that minority buying weapons is a parasite that will ultimately kill it's host (infact, I think that this might happen with the US Military, it's sucking of life out of the economy will kill it's host and leave it with no funds to maintain it's "adventures"), and there is no simple measure that takes into account such things and that makes most economic arguments, at least ones conditioned on just one or two measurable stats, are bunk.

But further, the economic argument is bunk because it ignores things like human comfort. you could build little hole in the wall apartments with drawer like bunk beds lining the walls, it'd be very economical, but it'd also probably result in a sky rocketing suicide rate.


Finally, to perform work for anyone but yourself (if not in fact, at least in mindset) is slavery (if not in fact, at least in mindset). A group that calls itself "workers solidarity" doesn't seem to me be a group that is opposed to slavery, they are just opposed to the current slave drivers without even realizing that the worst slave driver is in fact their own outlook.

[edited... a lot]
[edited to change an 's' into a 'd']
[edited to fix quote tags]
Last edited by Isaac. on Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Isaac.
Swivel-Hips
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:07 pm


Re: Housing

Postby Isaac. » Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:44 pm

Infinite wrote:
Isaac. wrote:public transit is bad on two counts, one is that any centralized system will be vulnerable to centralized failures, secondly it places the liberties of the individual second to whoever runs the transit system.

As far as everyone should own a townhouse, Non-sense, if I walk into the woods with an ax and build a mansion out of logs, than that's my mansion. Saying that everyone should do this, that, or the other is just as draconian and authoritarian as the state and it doesn't matter if it's "society" or some other entity that is imposing such rules.


but then again, I'm the crazy who thinks that if you just gave everyone guns and a little bit of education (not even directly related to anarchy, but instead to self-sufficency), that they'd be able to figure out things from there.


It's funny to me how most anti-authoritarian/imperialist people tend to be collectivist, because to me collectivism is at the root of so many of our problems and individualism, rebelling from the imposed popular line and 'thinking for yourself' is the solution. If everyone was an individualist and thought for themselves no one would buy into things like nationalism and religious ideologies that are the cause of conflict and war. Those are collectivist ideologies, so I don't see how more collectivist ideologies are the solution. True individualism is the realization that you don't have the right to impose on the rights of others so exploitation cannot be blamed on it i.m.o. That American capitalism is individualist is the propaganda used to sell it in my opinion and not accurate. A true individualist would not wave a flag except maybe a black one, but not a national flag


they could just as easily wave a Red Cross flag to signify relief, or maybe use a Swiss flag to signify armed neutrality? Lots of flags that could be flown for lots of different reasons.... though, what passes today as "capitalism" comes closer to Mussolinis corporatism than it does to the capitalism of Smith..... but otherwise, absolutely.
Isaac.
Swivel-Hips
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:07 pm


Return to Board index

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests