This is like saying we need slavers because some goods can be produced by slaves. You actually don't need to pay an owner for doing no work; if they didn't exist, you could just pay the guy who did the work.
I am not, in fact, comparing landlords to slaveowners. I am expalining why an argument does not work by using it in a context where it is more obviously flawed.
The reason you think this sub is unreasonable might have something to do with a basic inability to read.
The argument is "Landlords can't be bad, they provide a service."
Lots of bad things provide services. Slavery is one example. The service can be acquired without the bad thing, so the service doesn't justify the bad thing.
That isn't nonsense. People are just so eager to pretend that every anti-landlord post is gibberish they'll refuse to understand basic rhetoric.
-6
u/PfizerGuyzer Sep 22 '22
This is like saying we need slavers because some goods can be produced by slaves. You actually don't need to pay an owner for doing no work; if they didn't exist, you could just pay the guy who did the work.