Sovcits are all seeking to regain control of their lives. They recognize the system is cold and uncaring but though the power of magical thinking they believe that loopholes exist that can give you control back.
Are they delusional? Yes. Is their pain and frustration, the root cause of the insanity, valid? Absolutely valid, and something all of us (generalizing here, bourgeoisie excluded) experience.
You have more in common with a sovcit than you do with Jeff Bezos or any other billionaire.
I think sovcit is what happens when you recognize all of these things about our society, but lack the class consciousness to know that we need to act collectively and not hyperindividually
Definitely a significant part of it. Another aspect is definitely that of the conspiratorial/magical thinking that lets you believe that your exceptionalism has led you to find the secrets to easy and happy life that everyone else is just too dumb to see.
It's pretty classical conspiratorial thinking in that sense: That idea of occult understanding, hidden knowledge... all fits with the gnostic mysticism that preceded it.
Another aspect is definitely that of the conspiratorial/magical thinking that lets you believe that your exceptionalism has led you to find the secrets to easy and happy life that everyone else is just too dumb to see.
this is the part I have the most trouble dealing with, not only are they delusional but they're maniacally happy about their delusions and are assured that they're just so fucking clever.
Wow, this just reframed them in a profound way. It's so obvious that I hadn't considered it. Thanks!
Yeah he's right about all that. He just then chooses an insane and useless method to fix it. If he tried to create a community of people banding together to force change, like a renters union, he'd have more luck and sympathy.
The idea of a corporate landlord who can just sit in some office demanding rent from you without ever showing their faces on the property really is insane.
If I think of it myself, I've never met my landlord - they communicate exclusively through their estate agent, I only ever see their name on the rent bill.
When you have no ability to confront your landlord, you have no ability to negotiate. People's living spaces shouldn't be an investment.
Do you want your landlord showing up all the time just to remind you that the place you’re living in isn’t actually yours?
No, but I want to give my landlord the opportunity (responsibility?) to see me as a person and not just an income source.
There was a great episode of This American Life where they interviewed a kid who took over managing one of his dad's properties. One of the tenants was a couple who had lost a child, and they fell behind on rent (and on life in many ways).
One of the things that stood out to me was how difficult it was for the kid to put in the work needed to accommodate this couple. He worked his ass off coming up with payment plans and helping them budget. His big takeaway was that he didn't ever want to get involved with his tenants again because it was too heartbreaking to be in a position where you're supposed to evict someone that's struggling.
Act three of this episode if you want to check it. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/323/the-super
The problem with accommodating a tenant like that is the landlord has to treat all tenants exactly the same (in the US). It's unfortunate but the laws are to protect tenants who otherwise might be discriminated against.
Honestly @RadicalEagle said it better than I ever could...
I do believe a landlord should have the responsibility to communicate with their tenants personally, to negotiate any contracts personally, to hand notices personally, so that they're at the very least obligated to see their tenants as people rather than as purely as an investment.
Sure, there are some psychopaths that'll stomp all over you anyways, but for most people it's a lot harder to be an asshole when you have to confront the consequences personally.
You seem to think rent is a negotiation.
Where did u ever get that idea?
Just like anything else if someone has something u want u have to give them what they want. They have no obligation to negotiate.
Just like anything else if someone has something u want u have to give them what they want.
What exactly do you think "negotiate" means? Because it refers to this, to working out what it is that each of you will exchange with the other.
I mean, they have no obligation to negotiate but it is an option... Right up until the lease agreement is signed, after which point you're SOL
While you're right that the landlord has no obligation to negotiate with you, dependent on demand in your area, you do have some ability to negotiate pre-lease...
And let me tell you from experience, it's a whole lot easier to do that with a physical person than an entity you never see and never talk to directly.
Well it is on .ML which probably isn't really the best look. You know since they ban everyone
He a little confused, but he got the spirit.
He's right on the problems, not so much on causes and solutions...
In my imagination the most crazy here is in the responses received. Poor guy almost has it.
Everything he says is right but at the same time he decided to live in that apartment. If the rent is too high and the landlord doesn't fix issues move.
What's complaining going to do about it, and also how is it fascism to engage in capitalism?
2a) and the law is full of exceptions, prerequisites, superseded, and other qualifiers. So even if you do find a rule you think applies to you, you don’t know that it only applies on a third Thursday of the month in a leap year, after you filed the prerequisite paperwork last year, paid the filing fee, and did a hat dance.
Actually I think he's got a point there. How am I supposed to know all the rules applying to me, if not even experts who study law for years are in agreement about them?
How am I even supposed to know, that there is a law about something?
Right up until it's a police officer that doesn't know the law, of course. Then they can't possibly be expected to know the laws they enforce!
But it’s still our problem.
We don’t know the law? Our problem. Cop doesn’t know the law? Still our problem.
It’s never their problem.
If this group ended up being the one to abolish private property in real estate, it would be a plot twist that I didn't see coming.
Well, if you look at it, Italian fascism nationalized farmland in the '30s.
No, they are right. In the US national, state, county, and local laws all interact with each other and there is rarely an easy way to get clarification when the statutes are vague and things are mostly done by regulations which may or may not be posted in a publicly available and findable location. Then the odds of the publicly available information being up to date is pretty slim. There is rarely any notification of changes, and if you travel 30 mins to the next town they might have completely different laws with different enforcement methods.
Hell, a lot of statutes have been invalidated by court cases so the laws are on the books but cannot be enforced. I imagine most other countries have a similar blend of different laws at the local and regional levels and weirdness due to litigation.
It really is impossible for the average person to know complex law unless knowing the law is their job, and even then nobody knows all of it and all regulations.
That doesn't mean it is slavery or fascism and that is there this person's valid complaint turned into loony tunes territory.
Every law is posted online. If there are exceptions those are also posted.
What are you smoking?
>be me
>want to be cool so i go out to buy undercarriage lights for my car
>also don't want to be pulled over so i check laws in my state
>legal
sweet.mp3
>buy lights and install them
>next day get pulled over on highway
wtf.jpeg
>sheriff tells me lights are illegal in county
>get ticket
>look up city laws
>legal
>look up county laws
>illegal
>look up laws in neighboring county that i pass on way to work before rejoining my county
>legal
>decide to go buy weed because clearly i'm high and smoked it all
legalstate.yuss
>go to dispensary in my city
>medical only
>city opted out of recreational
mfw
mfw i have no face
It's true though. If I wanted to check if doing something specific was illegal I'd have a hard time finding it online officially unless I skimmed through dozens and dozens of legal documents written out in lawyer speak.
To be fair, in this context, the question is "If I want to continue receiving the thing that I agreed to pay for, can I do so without paying for it?"
It's not that the law is really that complicated or hard for these agreements. It's that sovereign citizens can't accept the answer: yes you have to pay for things.
The entire ethos for them that the law is a magic language and if you learn the right spells you can get things for free. It's an endless stream of "without prejudice" "corporation" "coupon" "not for commercial use" incantations... All with the same alchemical purpose: turn lead into gold turn words into not paying for things.
For these people, in their circles, they intentionally make the law complicated, so it aligns with their mystism.
Well, sort of. If you’re a corporation or have enough capital, you can continue to receive things without paying for them. If you’re able to understand how to set things up properly and can fake the right investment, you can get things for free.
Please don’t take this as support for sovcit; I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong.
I think you're a little bit confused about why large companies sometimes are able to continue to receive services from their vendors if there is a lapse in payment.
It isn't because they have legal standing, or are entitled to them, it's just that their vendors are weighing the balance of probability: is it more likely that they'll collapse and never get paid due to creditor protection... Or will they sort their shit out and pay late (as opposed to never). If they cut the supply of whatever the service is, that will damage the business relationship and it's likely they'll lose their contracts all together.
And yeah, sometimes companies use this as a bullying tactic.
But... There isn't really any ambiguity in the civil law here: if you agree to pay for goods and services, and stop, then you aren't entitled to those goods and services anymore.
I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood entitlement here. Squatter’s rights, for example, are an immediate counter to your lack of ambiguity. The securities system is built around not paying for things to get things, as are most subsidies. There’s a way to do all of that correctly, which most sovcits don’t understand.
You should go onto a sovcit forum and explain that yes, they can get things for free and that they're just all doing it wrong.
By your own telling, you can get things for free if you’re large enough or have enough capital. Sounds like you’re right there with me!
This is complete bullshit. You can easily find out if something is illegal in your town / state / county with a 5 min Google search.
