• cum@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    1122·
    6 months ago

    Why is it assumed that the owner can afford to have her live rent free?

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      172·
      6 months ago

      Who the fuck cares? It indicates a massive flaw with the system. Either they can’t afford it or we aren’t doing anything to help it, or they’re just exploiting her to gain more wealth. Whatever the reason is, it isn’t a justification. It’s only an indictment of the system that allows it to happen. The fact the police are used to support the little lordling and not the poor old woman just makes it worse.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          The point is no one should be in a position to say no. I’m not saying I would do better as a landlord (I would, but that’s why I probably will never be a landlord), rather that the system is broken and no one should be, or at least not be allowed to deny this woman at minimum.

          Is it so hard to imagine that there can be other incentives to work towards than profit? Profit is not a good goal for a system to prioritize. Can you agree with that? If so, can’t you imagine that a system could exist that prioritizes doing good or creating happiness or anything else?

    • 0x2d@lemmy.ml
      174·
      6 months ago

      landlord

      the kind of rich person that owns multiple houses

      not a small business

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        33·
        6 months ago

        There are independent landlords out there. One of my cousins rents out a bit of his property to some dude because its seperated by thick brush and its easier to just rent out the remote edges of the property than it is to make trails and do the required paperwork for the permit. He also rents a chunk out to the road maintenance company.

        My point being theres landlords and then theres Landlords one is just someone renting out property for whatever reason and the other makes is running it as a business.