Quote:
Quote by: grandpa  Many landlords do not do this. But the crucial point you seem to miss is that landlords aren't necessary to maintain and upkeep a building. The people living there can take care of these things as they see fit. The landlord is merely an entity of legally imposed rights, one of which is to to draw money out of people for no absolutely necessary reason (other than a lust for exploitation, though I'm sure not all landlords live without guilt).
In the grand sense, it is a lose-lose situation, I think. The landlord is a thief, and so is the tenant, for they are contributing to the build-up of a massive state program of theft of land that could otherwise be commonly held (the massive theft exists, whether we're talking about municipalities or the state in general). The landlord must also always be in the position to breathe down a tenants neck, to constantly threaten the tenant with eviction. In other words, to be cruel and sadistic. The tenant gets a house (or a small room) because land is not allowed to be available for free, and thus must agree with what is essentially a form of servitude.
And none of this is necessary---an ELEMENTARY point that I must emphasize again and again. People don't need to do this to live somewhere. The need for this state of affairs is a total fiction.
Grandpa h. |
Obviously land cannot be "free." And this is because it can be used for any number of things. So there will need to be mechanisms to determine the value, and thus best use, of land.
Yes, the tenants can maintain upkeep. But like I said, such activities takes time and effort and skills which tenants do not perhaps have, or perhaps would choose not to employ. It is certainly true that not all landlords keep up teir property to high standards. However, there are generally legal requirements that they do so and so tenants have options. By your own admission, tenants would uphold property only to the extent that they wish, which is no standard at all.