So the community bears the effort and cost of maintaining houses (or apartments) which they are not allowed to benefit from.
Bear in mind that the community would render aid to anyone who needs assistance in maintaining their own properties as well. It would be mutual aid. For the ‘cost’ of perhaps choosing to maintain a temporarily empty property, you would never need to ‘purchase’ a new roof, heater, or repairs for your own home. The community would help you the same way you helped them.
You’re also ignoring my mention of the benefit that this mutual aid would enable others to travel to maintained community housing anywhere in the world for free.
I think we would see a significant number of people jumping from home to home, trashing each one and then moving on to the next, leaving the community with the choice of cleaning up those homes, or letting them become uninhabitable hazards, and a blight on the neighborhood.
I think you’re putting a bit too much weight into the idea that the only thing keeping most housing stock in good condition is that financial barrier. I think most people would want to keep their home in good condition without financial pressures forcing them to keep it nice. If everyone let their home go into disrepair, then there would be no ‘good’ homes to jump to. It’s in the interests of everyone to maintain good housing stock, so that if you ever did move you wouldn’t only have shitholes to choose from.
If you think people would suddenly start taking care of a home just because they have one, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you, just look at all the litter and pollution people dump everywhere. Take a moment and look at cars in parking lots, and I bet you’ll find at least one that is packed to the brim with garbage, to the point of being dangerous to drive.
I’m not saying in this new way of society that everything will just become magically perfect, but I very much doubt it would be an epidemic on the scale you’re thinking of. Even in your example of garbage filled cars, you don’t find half the parking lot like that, only one at most. Just because a handful of people might not take care of their home doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth it to stop millions of people worldwide from suffering and dying on the streets, throwing themselves under busses due to hopelessness.
No, there is a financial risk and financial incentive when you own a home, or even rent an apartment. If you don’t take care of it, then you lose out on that risk.
There are millions of dilapidated homes that are owned by the people who live in them. There are thousands upon thousands of rental properties that landlords will let become unlivable and condemned. Owning a property or even having consequences does not stop that from happening.
there are zoning laws, city, state, and national laws that pertain to maintaining a home, along with certifications and inspections to make sure the dwelling is safe to inhabit.
There is nothing stopping a community from continuing to enforce those laws if they desire.
but it’s also clear that “just make housing a right and let anyone move into a house that the community has to pay for and work to maintain” is an idealistic dream that naively handwaves away reality.
Bear in mind that the community would render aid to anyone who needs assistance in maintaining their own properties as well.
Ah, gotcha, so when my neighbor’s house needs to be redone because he rewired it himself, I’m on the hook for that. Too bad I have to stand by and let a couple of transient drug addicts cook meth in the house next door again, after I just spent last year decontaminating it and rebuilding it after the previous amateur chemist stripped out all the copper and dumped industrial solvents in the basement.
You’re also ignoring my mention of the benefit that this mutual aid would enable others to travel to maintained community housing anywhere in the world for free.
Sure thing. That’s totally going to happen. Even if this system was in place, how would one go about getting one of thosr places to stay in. Either it’s a free for all, first come first serve, with no guarantee that when I get to a destination that there will be a place to stay… Or there is a controlling board with a system to allow or reject people based on criteria set by a small group of people with extra power and leverage over others.
The big problem with the communal house idea (which keeps popping up despite it’s glaring flaws) is that no one bothered to examine it critically at all. As soon as you ask simple questions like “who takes care of the empty houses” or “how do you deal with people being assholes” it fall apart into vague handwaving about how everyone will be all helpful sunshine and smiles, which we know for a fact, people aren’t that at any level of their being.
I think most people would want to keep their home in good condition…
Except it wouldn’t be their home. Someone else built it, someone else maintained it, and after all that work, someone else got nothing for the effort when they had to leave it. Why would some squatter care about putting that effort in, when they can just hop to the next empty house that someone spent years maintaining?
Ah, gotcha, so when my neighbor’s house needs to be redone because he rewired it himself, I’m on the hook for that.
I already mentioned that a community could collectively decide to continue to enforce building codes.
Too bad I have to stand by and let a couple of transient drug addicts cook meth in the house next door again
There would be much less incentive to create drugs for profit in a world without money.
Not saying there wouldn’t be drugs or addicts, but it’s extremely likely the scale of the problem would be fairly drastically reduced, as many people turn to becoming drug addicts due to becoming homeless as a way to find some way to cope with the extreme stress and trauma of the situation. Without money, there would be no reason for China to continue to sell fentenyl and other drugs to the cartels to be shipped into the US, and the same for Cocaine from South America. That would leave only what could be reasonably produced at home, which would likely take the form of weed.
If, on the chance that someone did start producing meth in a community that has collectively agreed to not allow for that, they could potentially be ejected from the community.
Sure thing. That’s totally going to happen. … it fall apart into vague handwaving about how everyone will be all helpful sunshine and smiles, which we know for a fact, people aren’t that at any level of their being.
Bear in mind that the community would render aid to anyone who needs assistance in maintaining their own properties as well. It would be mutual aid. For the ‘cost’ of perhaps choosing to maintain a temporarily empty property, you would never need to ‘purchase’ a new roof, heater, or repairs for your own home. The community would help you the same way you helped them.
You’re also ignoring my mention of the benefit that this mutual aid would enable others to travel to maintained community housing anywhere in the world for free.
I think you’re putting a bit too much weight into the idea that the only thing keeping most housing stock in good condition is that financial barrier. I think most people would want to keep their home in good condition without financial pressures forcing them to keep it nice. If everyone let their home go into disrepair, then there would be no ‘good’ homes to jump to. It’s in the interests of everyone to maintain good housing stock, so that if you ever did move you wouldn’t only have shitholes to choose from.
I’m not saying in this new way of society that everything will just become magically perfect, but I very much doubt it would be an epidemic on the scale you’re thinking of. Even in your example of garbage filled cars, you don’t find half the parking lot like that, only one at most. Just because a handful of people might not take care of their home doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth it to stop millions of people worldwide from suffering and dying on the streets, throwing themselves under busses due to hopelessness.
There are millions of dilapidated homes that are owned by the people who live in them. There are thousands upon thousands of rental properties that landlords will let become unlivable and condemned. Owning a property or even having consequences does not stop that from happening.
There is nothing stopping a community from continuing to enforce those laws if they desire.
“It’s easier to imagine an end to the world, than to the end of capitalism.”
I’d suggest looking at some more in-depth analysis instead of dismissing the concept off hand from a short comment.
Ah, gotcha, so when my neighbor’s house needs to be redone because he rewired it himself, I’m on the hook for that. Too bad I have to stand by and let a couple of transient drug addicts cook meth in the house next door again, after I just spent last year decontaminating it and rebuilding it after the previous amateur chemist stripped out all the copper and dumped industrial solvents in the basement.
Sure thing. That’s totally going to happen. Even if this system was in place, how would one go about getting one of thosr places to stay in. Either it’s a free for all, first come first serve, with no guarantee that when I get to a destination that there will be a place to stay… Or there is a controlling board with a system to allow or reject people based on criteria set by a small group of people with extra power and leverage over others.
The big problem with the communal house idea (which keeps popping up despite it’s glaring flaws) is that no one bothered to examine it critically at all. As soon as you ask simple questions like “who takes care of the empty houses” or “how do you deal with people being assholes” it fall apart into vague handwaving about how everyone will be all helpful sunshine and smiles, which we know for a fact, people aren’t that at any level of their being.
Except it wouldn’t be their home. Someone else built it, someone else maintained it, and after all that work, someone else got nothing for the effort when they had to leave it. Why would some squatter care about putting that effort in, when they can just hop to the next empty house that someone spent years maintaining?
I already mentioned that a community could collectively decide to continue to enforce building codes.
There would be much less incentive to create drugs for profit in a world without money.
Not saying there wouldn’t be drugs or addicts, but it’s extremely likely the scale of the problem would be fairly drastically reduced, as many people turn to becoming drug addicts due to becoming homeless as a way to find some way to cope with the extreme stress and trauma of the situation. Without money, there would be no reason for China to continue to sell fentenyl and other drugs to the cartels to be shipped into the US, and the same for Cocaine from South America. That would leave only what could be reasonably produced at home, which would likely take the form of weed.
If, on the chance that someone did start producing meth in a community that has collectively agreed to not allow for that, they could potentially be ejected from the community.
It seems that you believe people are only motivated by money, status, or power. But we have examples of societies that were able to implement an Anarchist way of existence, such as Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, which abolished money, the state, and was able to thrive as federated communities. George Orwell went there, and spoke of how excellent that mode of society was, to the point that he fought in the war and took a bullet in the neck for it.
They could have built it themselves, too.