I could be pushed to 3 homes. One person owns a triple-decker building, lives on one floor and rents out the other two to students. That sounds fine to me.
Rereading: you said houses, not homes. 2 houses sounds good. One main home and a mother-in-law unit seems reasonable.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but it’s never okay to hoard more than you need while there others who genuinely need the things being hoarded. This is doubly true for housing.
Housing should be more controlled, but "need’ will always be a fuzzy term if you still want to allow individuals to have different levels of wealth. Nobody needs a huge home, either. Two or three rooms, actually…maybe a little more with kids.
Do i need a home office? Do i need a living room? Do I need a laundry room? Do I need more than two sets of clothes? Do I need a room for my child when she could technically sleep in my room?
We have more than enough to meet everyones needs - food, water, shelter, clothing, health care - many times over. Conveniences are things that are nice-to-have, but that everyone would still enjoy after all their fundamental needs are met. Hoarding for personal gain while other people suffer is hoarding. This is not a philosophically complicated issue.
I say it is OK to own 2 houses.
But you guys should make it a crime to own more than 2.
I could be pushed to 3 homes. One person owns a triple-decker building, lives on one floor and rents out the other two to students. That sounds fine to me.
Rereading: you said houses, not homes. 2 houses sounds good. One main home and a mother-in-law unit seems reasonable.
And if you had 3 I’m sure you’d say it’s alright to own 3, correct?
“Those other guys are a part of the problem, not me!”
But hey, beats paying for a hotel in Malibu once a year amirite?
This may be an unpopular opinion, but it’s never okay to hoard more than you need while there others who genuinely need the things being hoarded. This is doubly true for housing.
It’s not unpopular (at least on Lemmy), that is objectively the morally correct answer.
cool, so you’d be fine if someone came into your home and stole your shit because you don’t ‘need’ it, according to them?
Housing should be more controlled, but "need’ will always be a fuzzy term if you still want to allow individuals to have different levels of wealth. Nobody needs a huge home, either. Two or three rooms, actually…maybe a little more with kids.
I most certainly do not.
So what’s the allowance for people’s homes in your world? Two rooms and one more for each kid?
What part of “according to need” was unclear?
The need part…
Do i need a home office? Do i need a living room? Do I need a laundry room? Do I need more than two sets of clothes? Do I need a room for my child when she could technically sleep in my room?
Need is a very squishy word
We have more than enough to meet everyones needs - food, water, shelter, clothing, health care - many times over. Conveniences are things that are nice-to-have, but that everyone would still enjoy after all their fundamental needs are met. Hoarding for personal gain while other people suffer is hoarding. This is not a philosophically complicated issue.
I disagree. I don’t think me owning a banana to eat is hoarding even though my vitamins and plain oatmeal would meet my needs.
probably soviet style flats 2-3 rooms per family. and you can wait 10 years for your government issued car.