Boston guy who works full time but can't afford rent kicked out of shelter in favor migrants

[Matt4Liberty]

What you're saying is that it would be Marxist to try to curtail the carrying out of an actual Marxist plan, Agenda 2030.

You're saying that you want to curtail Agenda 2030 by getting rid of private property rights.

 

[acptulsa]

You're saying that you want to curtail Agenda 2030 by getting rid of private property rights.

Which is, in fact, the primary goal of Agenda 2030 -- elimination of private property. There's Hegel again. Problem -> reaction -> cure worse than the disease.

That said, when properties were bought with government money, like the Covid jab money Bill Gates is using to gobble up farmland, I have no compunction at all about the revolution confiscating it and finding a way to reallocate it. Whether by taxation or currency devaluation, we financed the purchase and should have the right to repossess somehow.

They've been stealing from people accused of being small time drug dealers for decades. Two wrongs may not make a right, but leaving these things in the hands of these bad actors is dangerous. We might do well to decide that turnabout really is fair play. I don't consider those confiscations to be ethical, so maybe these wouldn't be either. But not everything done in self-defense is.

 

[Matt4Liberty]

Which is, in fact, the primary goal of Agenda 2030 -- elimination of private property. There's Hegel again. Problem -> reaction -> cure worse than the disease.

That said, when properties were bought with government money, like the Covid jab money Bill Gates is using to gobble up farmland, I have no compunction at all about the revolution confiscating it and finding a way to reallocate it. Whether by taxation or currency devaluation, we financed the purchase and should have the right to repossess somehow.

They've been stealing from people accused of being small time drug dealers for decades. Two wrongs may not make a right, but leaving these things in the hands of these bad actors is dangerous. We might do well to decide that turnabout really is fair play. I don't consider those confiscations to be ethical, so maybe these wouldn't be either. But not everything done in self-defense is.

Exactly. But doing it for them somehow stops them. This debate might have to be moved to the clown world thread pretty soon.

 

[susano]

No, he's saying that the homeopathic cure is much healthier than the Big Pharma chemical cure. Far fewer side effects. I know you want to be proactive, but being proactive got us here. A free market operating on sound money certainly didn't cause this.

So, more Agenda 2023 to stop Agenda 2030?

 

[susano]

You're saying that you want to curtail Agenda 2030 by getting rid of private property rights.

No, I'm not.

 

[susano]

Which is, in fact, the primary goal of Agenda 2030 -- elimination of private property. There's Hegel again. Problem -> reaction -> cure worse than the disease.

That said, when properties were bought with government money, like the Covid jab money Bill Gates is using to gobble up farmland, I have no compunction at all about the revolution confiscating it and finding a way to reallocate it. Whether by taxation or currency devaluation, we financed the purchase and should have the right to repossess somehow.

They've been stealing from people accused of being small time drug dealers for decades. Two wrongs may not make a right, but leaving these things in the hands of these bad actors is dangerous. We might do well to decide that turnabout really is fair play. I don't consider those confiscations to be ethical, so maybe these wouldn't be either. But not everything done in self-defense is.

Okay, wait. You're saying you would approve of confiscating monopolized farmland but you would not approve of limiting rental property ownership and forcing sales to other private owners? Are these not very similar problems?

 

[Matt4Liberty]

No, I'm not.

This is just bizarre. It's like an argument with a child. You can try and spin this however you want, but you're calling for a Communist confiscation of property. Somehow this will cause old Klaus and friends to cry and give up. This is literally what you've been pushing for.

 

[susano]

This is just bizarre. It's like an argument with a child. You can try and spin this however you want, but you're calling for a Communist confiscation of property. Somehow this will cause old Klaus and friends to cry and give up. This is literally what you've been pushing for.

And I feel like talking to you is like talking to a special ed case. You don't have a clue what's going on with Agenda 2030 and you don't seem inclined to learn. On top of buying up single family homes they also want to eliminate single family home zoning. I have not called for any confiscation of property, nor would I.

 

[Matt4Liberty]

And I feel like talking to you is like talking to a special ed case. You don't have a clue what's going on with Agenda 2030 and you don't seem inclined to learn. On top of buying up single family homes they also want to eliminate single family home zoning. I have not called for any confiscation of property, nor would I.

I guess commies are going to commie.

 

[acptulsa]

Okay, wait. You're saying you would approve of confiscating monopolized farmland but you would not approve of limiting rental property ownership and forcing sales to other private owners? Are these not very similar problems?

No. I cannot approve of confiscation based on central social engineering. I'm no fan of eminent domain. But I can get behind recovering what this corruption has stolen. Show me the thieves, Gates, Blackrock, and their lesser cohorts, show me the proof their gains are ill-gotten, and I'll show you what can be ethically reclaimed for their victims.

If you want to solve this problem without you yourself becoming the "cure" worse than the disease, you can't be do it by approaching it like a social engineer. But you can do it with, essentially, a civil suit. There has been crimes. Recover what was stolen by recovering what was bought with the proceeds. Done properly, doing this will break up the Agenda without creating more innocent victims of your own.

And yes, there can be criminal charges too. These people are breaking laws that have been on the books a long time. They can go to prison.

 

[susano]

No. I cannot approve of confiscation based on central social engineering. I'm no fan of eminent domain. But I can get behind recovering what this corruption has stolen. Show me the thieves, Gates, Blackrock, and their lesser cohorts, show me the proof their gains are ill-gotten, and I'll show you what can be ethically reclaimed for their victims.

If you want to solve this problem without you yourself becoming the "cure" worse than the disease, you can't be do it by approaching it like a social engineer. But you can do it with, essentially, a civil suit. There has been crimes. Recover what was stolen by recovering what was bought with the proceeds. Done properly, doing this will break up the Agenda without creating more innocent victims of your own.

Well, I don't approve of confiscation or eminent domain (the latter should be repealed from the constitution). When At&T was broken up, it wasn't confiscated it was forced to sell off parts to other private buyers (i.e., broken up) right? The argument then was monopolies bad, competition good. Nobody was denied the right to own private property. Same for what I'm advocating with residential housing. That's getting twisted into I'm a Marxist. Worse, this isn't some abstract argument. Agenda 2030 is in full swing and destroying the country, freedom and our way of life.

 

[acptulsa]

Another goal of Agenda 20xx is the destruction of the principles that made this nation what it used to be. This damage that alarms both you and me can be undone without abandoning those principles. Going to the trouble to make damned sure you're stealing only what was stolen from the people won't slow the turnaround down that much. Approaching it any other way won't turn it around at all; it'll just become the same evil with a new master.

An evil thing with a good master may not be a problem at the moment, but no master lives forever. It's a palliative, not a cure. Undoing the damage and dismantling the things, destroying the bad actors and their tools, is a cure.

Throw the damned ring in the fire.

 

[Matt4Liberty]

Well, I don't approve of confiscation or eminent domain (the latter should be repealed from the constitution). When At&T was broken up, it wasn't confiscated it was forced to sell off parts to other private buyers (i.e., broken up) right? The argument then was monopolies bad, competition good. Nobody was denied the right to own private property. Same for what I'm advocating with residential housing. That's getting twisted into I'm a Marxist. Worse, this isn't some abstract argument. Agenda 2030 is in full swing and destroying the country, freedom and our way of life.

Yes, you literally want to limit how many properties someone owns to two. This is exactly how many were allowed for n communist Czechoslovakia as I was growing up. You're like a staunch leftist. Completely addressing things from an emotional angle without any thoughts or cares about the consequences. It just feels good to stick it to the evil mean property owners. Get rid of the Feds easy money, (or the Fed altogether) and the problem is solved by market interest rates without invoking ideas from the Frankfurt school.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Blackrock is an arm of the cabal, but Vanguard is not. The only reason why Vanguard is such a broad owner is because they started so many index funds and mutual funds over many decades. They are just a broad market participant without the same type of purpose-driven agenda that Blackrock directs. ...

Actually, you need to know who "controls" Vanguard itself. While mutual funds and ETFs are owned by investors, the voting rights, and thus control, is exercised by Vanguard. Same with Blackrock. So you need to know who controls Vanguard and Blackrock. While those companies have executives, who is on the boards? Who has controlling interest in Blackrock and Vanguard?

People have explored this, and have come to the conclusion that through a complex web of ownership and co-ownership, actual control rests with an old money Plutocracy, which consists of a limited number of interbred families. They think of themselves as royalty, and no doubt they include plenty of old world royalty. It's hidden, and that is intentional. Because of past notoriety, some of those family names are well-known, like Rockefeller, but it is not limited to the better known "conspiracy" names.

 

[sparebulb]

A significant portion of my net worth is in Vanguard funds.

They are not that generous and I don't think I get to vote on leadership.

As if that could change anything.

 

[susano]

Actually, you need to know who "controls" Vanguard itself. While mutual funds and ETFs are owned by investors, the voting rights, and thus control, is exercised by Vanguard. Same with Blackrock. So you need to know who controls Vanguard and Blackrock. While those companies have executives, who is on the boards? Who has controlling interest in Blackrock and Vanguard?

People have explored this, and have come to the conclusion that through a complex web of ownership and co-ownership, actual control rests with an old money Plutocracy, which consists of a limited number of interbred families. They think of themselves as royalty, and no doubt they include plenty of old world royalty. It's hidden, and that is intentional. Because of past notoriety, some of those family names are well-known, like Rockefeller, but it is not limited to the better known "conspiracy" names.

Interlocking directorships and same board members found across most multinationals. They all own each other.

 

[susano]

A significant portion of my net worth is in Vanguard funds.

They are not that generous and I don't think I get to vote on leadership.

As if that could change anything.

My and my husbands insignificant net worth is with Schwab who probably invests it through Blackrock and Vanguard. Vivek Ramaswamy has an investment firm called Strive and that may be worth looking at. Since I know know nothing about investing I don't know about them other than Ramaswamy stating it is anti woke so not participating with those entities.

 

[susano]

Yes, you literally want to limit how many properties someone owns to two. This is exactly how many were allowed for n communist Czechoslovakia as I was growing up. You're like a staunch leftist. Completely addressing things from an emotional angle without any thoughts or cares about the consequences. It just feels good to stick it to the evil mean property owners. Get rid of the Feds easy money, (or the Fed altogether) and the problem is solved by market interest rates without invoking ideas from the Frankfurt school.

You're being off the charts reactionary and accusing me things that are not true. I don't appreciate it. Perhaps if you were able to calm down it would be possible to have a conversation.

I hate Marxism and have read extant material from live witnesses to the Bolshevik revolution. I am not advocating any such shit. I could just easily accuse you of supporting Agenda 2030 and the creation of a feudal plantation because that is exactly what's happening in the US. What I've advocated for is anti monopoly and pro competition in the PRIVATE sector to avoid oligarchies controlling everything and thereby creating the inevitable demand for communism (government housing).

 

[Matt4Liberty]

You're being off the charts reactionary and accusing me things that are not true. I don't appreciate it. Perhaps if you were able to calm down it would be possible to have a conversation.

I hate Marxism and have read extant material from live witnesses to the Bolshevik revolution. I am not advocating any such shit. I could just easily accuse you of supporting Agenda 2030 and the creation of a feudal plantation because that is exactly what's happening in the US. What I've advocated for is anti monopoly and pro competition in the PRIVATE sector to avoid oligarchies controlling everything and thereby creating the inevitable demand for communism (government housing).

Let's reexamine who's being what, and who's saying what.

The regulation and laws need to happen at the local level. Here's my thinking on that that protects the rights of private property. I'd like some feedback on this:

Outlaw anyone - individual or corporation owning anything more than ONE rental property. That can be a single family home or one apartment complex. Put a time limit of like a year-18 months for that to happen. Failure to sell off additional properties would result in - I dunno - property taxes being tripled, a forced auction or something. This will cause a massive sell off residential properties and drive real estate prices down, fast.

Not sure if the above would address the Airbnb problem, which also massive, but it would limit ownership of any such property because of the one allowed rental law.

I know that investors would scream about private property and lawsuits would ensue but I don't see it as interfering with private ownership as everyone would own their own home, if they chose, and everyone could own one rental property. It simply stops monopolies by current and potential feudal lords.

You are proposing basically the same private property rights as communist Czechoslovakia had and probably most other communist nations although I can't confirm that. The only difference is that you would allow ownership of a whole apartment building. Explain how outlawing someone from owning property isn't a Marxist ideal. No spinning that it's free market capitalism. It's the exact opposite if you are taking away property from someone and giving it to someone else. It can't be free market capitalism unless both parties in a transaction are participating voluntarily and have mutually agreed on the transaction. Yet somehow, you think if the seller is forced to give up there property at the behest of government agents with guns is free market capitalist and not Marxist. There's one person that needs to calm down and really rethink this, and it's not me.

 

[susano]

Let's reexamine who's being what, and who's saying what.



You are proposing basically the same private property rights as communist Czechoslovakia had and probably most other communist nations although I can't confirm that. The only difference is that you would allow ownership of a whole apartment building. Explain how outlawing someone from owning property isn't a Marxist ideal. No spinning that it's free market capitalism. It's the exact opposite if you are taking away property from someone and giving it to someone else. It can't be free market capitalism unless both parties in a transaction are participating voluntarily and have mutually agreed on the transaction. Yet somehow, you think if the seller is forced to give up there property at the behest of government agents with guns is free market capitalist and not Marxist. There's one person that needs to calm down and really rethink this, and it's not me.

When Standard Oil or AT&T were broken up, nothing was stolen or confiscated. They just sold off assets to break the monopolies and it increased competition. Everything was still all privately owned. If Google got broken up would you think that was communist? Someone who owns their own house, plus a rental property, can own a grocery store, a gas station, a strip mall, an office building, an airline, a hospital and on and on. My point is that to allow oligarchs to corner the available housing stock will lead to communism. Look at the UK where it's full of council housing. I don't want government owned low income housing where I live and if too many people are priced out of the housing market there will be a demand for it. Oligarchies and communism go hand in hand, as does absurd disparity of wealth. You end up with the upper class, lower class and no middle. I agree with you about the Fed but that's a far bigger problem to tackle than local restrictions on property monopolies. With the Fed you're talking about an entrenched global financial system.