Why would requisitioning empty dwellings be complicated or require specialized infrastructure?
Because when you requisition those empty dwellings and the owners refuse, you will need a large mechanized infantry to tell them that their refusals are irrelevant. Within the United States, the police authorities might substitute as that infantry, but do you have much confidence on them obeying? Even if they work, they’re hardly cheap. So instead, you go with some cannibalized portion of the US military, but they clock in at something like $0.8 trillion per year… does anyone think of that as inexpensive?
So, specialized? Dunno. But definitely non-cheap infrastructure.
But we’re talking housing which is both really necessary for basic survival, and a very tiny portion of rich people’s wealth,
Of true wealth, real estate comprises the bulk of it. Sure, Bezos (and most of the rest) have the vast portion of their wealth as stock/equity in various businesses… but that was never true wealth anyway. That’s imbeciles speculating on the shares of companies that (for the most part) don’t even pay dividends. It’s a distraction.
Besides, we’re not talking about Bezos. Whatever else you might say about him, he’s not exactly a slumlord squeezing single mothers for rent money. We’re talking about the guy who managed to squirrel away an extra $80,000 over his long career, and buys some flipper shack to rent out for passive income. He definitely has most of his surplus tied up in that home… assuming he has one of his own, and assuming that home is similar, something like half of his wealth exists in that building and the plot underneath it. If he’s managed to do two or three of those, then even larger fractions of his wealth are invested in those properties.
For him it’s life or death. For you, it’s an academic discussion on some obscure internet forum as a gotcha against another guy who was offering a good faith, honest answer on how to effect positive changes with minor laws. But I guess it’s simpler and cheaper to just mobilize an army and perpetrate unnecessary violence. That landlord, he’s willing to reciprocate to keep it.
to be clear, as an anarchist i’m profoundly against central authorities,
Were that true, then you wouldn’t be talking about expropriation which requires central authorities. Your solution would be for people to simply squat in those homes… which already happens. And which hasn’t solved homelessness. This really isn’t a problem that capitalism is directly culpable for… when the capitalists find someone squatting in an “empty” dwelling, more often than not, they don’t resort to violence. They give those people a wad of cash to “move out”.
Why this hasn’t solved homelessness is that many of the homeless have severe sociological/psychological issues that prevent them from taking advantage. They need help beyond the “here’s a roof and a door that closes”. That help almost certainly requires a central authority, and those central authorities currently refuse to help. Not because they don’t want to (some do), not because they don’t have good ideas about how to help (some do), but because helping 10 homeless people quickly becomes helping 75,000 homeless people and that’s just not in the budget. Other municipal governments cheat and don’t bother to help if they see one helping… why bother when someone else is doing that? It’s easier, cheaper, and the homeless soon become “far away”.
It really is a game theory problem. And I told you how to create conditions to keep them from defecting so we can have the optimal outcome, and rather than appreciate the true solution, you’d rather do… well, what it is you’re doing now. There’s no hope for the human species. You’re all getting everything you deserve.
Because when you requisition those empty dwellings and the owners refuse, you will need a large mechanized infantry to tell them that their refusals are irrelevant. Within the United States, the police authorities might substitute as that infantry, but do you have much confidence on them obeying? Even if they work, they’re hardly cheap. So instead, you go with some cannibalized portion of the US military, but they clock in at something like $0.8 trillion per year… does anyone think of that as inexpensive?
So, specialized? Dunno. But definitely non-cheap infrastructure.
Of true wealth, real estate comprises the bulk of it. Sure, Bezos (and most of the rest) have the vast portion of their wealth as stock/equity in various businesses… but that was never true wealth anyway. That’s imbeciles speculating on the shares of companies that (for the most part) don’t even pay dividends. It’s a distraction.
Besides, we’re not talking about Bezos. Whatever else you might say about him, he’s not exactly a slumlord squeezing single mothers for rent money. We’re talking about the guy who managed to squirrel away an extra $80,000 over his long career, and buys some flipper shack to rent out for passive income. He definitely has most of his surplus tied up in that home… assuming he has one of his own, and assuming that home is similar, something like half of his wealth exists in that building and the plot underneath it. If he’s managed to do two or three of those, then even larger fractions of his wealth are invested in those properties.
For him it’s life or death. For you, it’s an academic discussion on some obscure internet forum as a gotcha against another guy who was offering a good faith, honest answer on how to effect positive changes with minor laws. But I guess it’s simpler and cheaper to just mobilize an army and perpetrate unnecessary violence. That landlord, he’s willing to reciprocate to keep it.
Were that true, then you wouldn’t be talking about expropriation which requires central authorities. Your solution would be for people to simply squat in those homes… which already happens. And which hasn’t solved homelessness. This really isn’t a problem that capitalism is directly culpable for… when the capitalists find someone squatting in an “empty” dwelling, more often than not, they don’t resort to violence. They give those people a wad of cash to “move out”.
Why this hasn’t solved homelessness is that many of the homeless have severe sociological/psychological issues that prevent them from taking advantage. They need help beyond the “here’s a roof and a door that closes”. That help almost certainly requires a central authority, and those central authorities currently refuse to help. Not because they don’t want to (some do), not because they don’t have good ideas about how to help (some do), but because helping 10 homeless people quickly becomes helping 75,000 homeless people and that’s just not in the budget. Other municipal governments cheat and don’t bother to help if they see one helping… why bother when someone else is doing that? It’s easier, cheaper, and the homeless soon become “far away”.
It really is a game theory problem. And I told you how to create conditions to keep them from defecting so we can have the optimal outcome, and rather than appreciate the true solution, you’d rather do… well, what it is you’re doing now. There’s no hope for the human species. You’re all getting everything you deserve.