If you lose your job, do you still have a moral duty to pay your rent on time?

[Ahlevah]

I think perhaps your more open to the morality I'm defending, but you make this assumption that as a society we shouldn't enforce morality, but I'm not sure why we should have such a libertine attitude when it comes to government enforcement of morality.

No, I'm not saying that. We enforce morality all the time through our laws, just as the ancient Hebrews did. Their law said, among other things, not to murder or steal or bad things would happen to you. But I believe that where it concerns civil society there are some basic truths, such as the idea that the primary purpose of civil government is to secure the natural rights of man. One right would be not to be murdered while you're jogging in a public park. I see value in teaching and supporting behavior that allows people to live communally and yet freely as they would in a state of nature, but without the threats that would otherwise befall them.

 

[Citizen]

Sure, but this discussion was more about the moral duty of the issue of being true to one's word and honoring an agreement rather than the legal issues involved with contracts and such.

Well, under normal circumstances, you must honor your agreement. If you lose your job under normal circumstances, most states can provide you with assistance. Other than that, you are on your own. Landlords care about profits. If they know they can evict you and rent the place to someone else, that is what they will do

 

[joko104]

The real poll question is: "Should you be able to steal any rental property you want to?" because anyone can cause themselves to lose their job and then go get an off the books cash job. Regardless, there is no way a landlord could even learn if a person got a different job - so just rent the most costly rental condo or mansion you can find, get yourself fired, get another job and you now essentially own the mansion while the landlord still has to pay all property taxes, all maintenance costs, the mortgage and the insurance.

The OPer's messages are all beggar-bum messages, but he thinks he's it is clever beggar-bum begging. I have no sympathy for beggars unless truly severely handicapped and those can get generous government assistance. To the contrary, I despise beggars because of that with very, very few exceptions. They are lazy asses and do all they can to try to force government to use it's power to steal money from people for them.

 

[phattonez]

No, I'm not saying that. We enforce morality all the time through our laws, just as the ancient Hebrews did. Their law said, among other things, not to murder or steal or bad things would happen to you. But I believe that where it concerns civil society there are some basic truths, such as the idea that the primary purpose of civil government is to secure the natural rights of man. One right would be not to be murdered while you're jogging in a public park. I see value in teaching and supporting behavior that allows people to live communally and yet freely as they would in a state of nature, but without the threats that would otherwise befall them.

Then why not enforce economic laws also? They had strict ones, especially laws against usury. Why can we not enact similar laws?

 

[Ahlevah]

Then why not enforce economic laws also? They had strict ones, especially laws against usury. Why can we not enact similar laws?

We can and we do, but still there is no simple answer to that question, other than to say we've shifted our understanding about what we expect civil society to do. The short version comes out of ideas that emerged during the Enlightenment from the writings of people like Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury; Francis Hutcheson; Edmund Burke; John Locke; Adam Smith; Thomas Jefferson; and so forth. For example:

In Moral Sentiments, Smith foresaw the need for a strong system of justice and self-command to achieve a well-functioning economic and social system. “Concern for our own happiness (self interest) recommends to us the virtue of prudence (self-command), concern for that of other people, the virtues of justice and beneficence –- of which the one restrains us from hurting, the other prompts … (us) to promote that happiness.”

What Would Adam Smith Say About Morals and Markets? | The GailFosler Group

In a a perfectly ideal world, in which people would always strive to be virtuous, just, and benevolent, there would be no need for the law. The less civil and "virtuous" a citizenry becomes, the more a society will find it necessary to compel behavior that allows the bulk of its citizens some measure of freedom and happiness. In a sense the two concepts are always warring with each other: We want to be free, but we have to place limits on it because some people, for whatever reason, simply don't behave properly. So recurring themes coming from these Enlightenment writers involve individual freedom, morals, virtue, and so forth because they're inextricably linked together. I suppose that's one reason why, while I'm not personally particularly religious, I feel, like Burke, that organized religion is one major institution in a free society that can serve to teach and promote behavior that is beneficial to that society. If people would just follow The Golden Rule that would go a long way towards creating a better world for all of us.

 

[phattonez]

We can and we do, but still there is no simple answer to that question, other than to say we've shifted our understanding about what we expect civil society to do. The short version comes out of ideas that emerged during the Enlightenment from the writings of people like Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury; Francis Hutcheson; Edmund Burke; John Locke; Adam Smith; Thomas Jefferson; and so forth. For example:



In a a perfectly ideal world, in which people would always strive to be virtuous, just, and benevolent, there would be no need for the law. The less civil and "virtuous" a citizenry becomes, the more a society will find it necessary to compel behavior that allows the bulk of its citizens some measure of freedom and happiness. In a sense the two concepts are always warring with each other: We want to be free, but we have to place limits on it because some people, for whatever reason, simply don't behave properly. So recurring themes coming from these Enlightenment writers involve individual freedom, morals, virtue, and so forth because they're inextricably linked together. I suppose that's one reason why, while I'm not personally particularly religious, I feel, like Burke, that organized religion is one major institution in a free society that can serve to teach and promote behavior that is beneficial to that society. If people would just follow The Golden Rule that would go a long way towards creating a better world for all of us.

Based on your writing then I'd assume you'd argue that a more immoral society requires more laws. And I'd agree. So then as we've clearly become a more immoral society, shouldn't we be using more laws especially in the economic realm, not fewer?

 

[What if...?]

LOL, are you serious? This is the best you can do? "I know you are, but what am I?" Really? :lamo

From the outside it looks like I'm playing "Why are you hitting yourself?"

 

[jaypatriot]

You're not running negative unless you're doing shoddy accounting by ignoring your increasing equity and home price appreciation. More likely you made tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars because the prices of your properties went way up and you cashed out.

Wow! You're a financial genius. l should have talked to you before I bought rental property.
Everyone's circumstances are different when it comes to rental properties.
There is no one size fits all.

 

[BahamaBob]

If they could just raise the rent, then why aren't they doing it now? You guys are showing that you have no idea how real estate markets work. Prices aren't determined by costs!

You are the one who is clueless. If you did any research you would find that rent is increasing all the time. The only exception is where the local governments have stepped in and imposed rent freezes. If you don't think prices are determined by costs you are seriously ignorant of economics.

 

[jaypatriot]

Thankfully part of the stimulus should help banks as well and I know many banks are granting payment deferrals and being pretty lenient with repayment at this time.

There are going to be plenty of payment deferrals in the coming months until people start generating income.
Banks don't want to deal with foreclosures. They just finished getting rid of foreclosures from 10 years ago.

 

[jaypatriot]

Yes, people have never liked it when bums, alcoholics and drug addicts form enclaves in their community. While there are exceptions (the mentally ill and those who experience true bad luck), most are just bums. They used to be called hobos. Anyone has a right to live that way, but no one has a moral duty to give their own money to do so.

Around here they are called forest people. They live in small groups in tents in the woods usually near a WalMart, grocery store or where there is a collection of restaurants. Most have bicycles they stole. They beg in the parking lot until the Sheriff's department runs them off and often will go into fast foods restaurants begging for food. It is give to them because they are dirty, stink and people will turn around and walkout - so they are given food to get them to go away.

Our business used to hire those who accepted a job offer and we pay exceptionally well for zero skills jobs. Minimally, they would have over $600 in their pocket each pay day (a 40 hour 9-5 week). Almost none would accept. Of those who did, 100% quit by their second week and most when they got their first pay. Nearly half wouldn't finish the week. They don't want to work. They want to get stoned and drunk. It is a lifestyle they WANT, not one they are forced into. They are bums and beggars. That is the life they want. They have a right to be a bum. But nobody owes them a dime.

I've noticed the police aren't harassing the homeless vagrants who gather under the trees in the park near our two dog parks. Maybe the police have been told to hold off on the vagrants and pay attention to the city parks that have been closed.
I wonder how they use the drive thrus at the local fast food restaurants where you can't go in.

 

[Ahlevah]

Based on your writing then I'd assume you'd argue that a more immoral society requires more laws. And I'd agree. So then as we've clearly become a more immoral society, shouldn't we be using more laws especially in the economic realm, not fewer?

Humans being human, I think you need effective criminal and civil legal systems--call it "the rule of law," so, yeah, in that sense civil society requires a legal framework. But the goal should be to instill in the citizenry those traits that best suit the society, such as not engaging in destructive or immoral behavior like crime. The law should work with other institutions (such as the family, the educational system, the media, churches, etc.) to accomplish this. Even sports have a role. Having heroes such as Jackie Robinson or Jesse Owens to inspire us and provoke our moral conscience is useful and desirable to get to where we all should want to be as a society.

As to your second point, I'm not sure I agree with your claim that we've become more immoral in general. Certainly, in some ways we have, but in others I think we're better off than we used to be. One of the greatest moral injustices in history was (is) slavery, and I'd place Jim Crow as a nice, big, fat second. And if you look behind the facade of 19th Century Victorian puritanism, you'll see plenty of bawdy behavior--opium smoking, whoring, orgies, etc. And violent crime has actually been trending down for decades. On the other hand, I think we need to get back to a greater emphasis on promoting things such as not having kids out of wedlock. The family is our first line of defense to creating a better society. If one parent is struggling with two or three jobs just trying to put food on the table (or a roof over their heads), getting out of poverty and having the time to properly raise children can be problematic. Odds of success go up with two parents. That's just a fact.

 

[Ahlevah]

From the outside it looks like I'm playing "Why are you hitting yourself?"

If you're going to hit yourself, you might as well be the Bullseye.

 

[phattonez]

You are the one who is clueless. If you did any research you would find that rent is increasing all the time. The only exception is where the local governments have stepped in and imposed rent freezes. If you don't think prices are determined by costs you are seriously ignorant of economics.

They're going up a small percent each year. I'm talking about a massive increase in property tax for landlords. If they could increase rent to cover it, then why aren't they doing it now and just taking it as profit?

 

[phattonez]

Humans being human, I think you need effective criminal and civil legal systems--call it "the rule of law," so, yeah, in that sense civil society requires a legal framework. But the goal should be to instill in the citizenry those traits that best suit the society, such as not engaging in destructive or immoral behavior like crime. The law should work with other institutions (such as the family, the educational system, the media, churches, etc.) to accomplish this. Even sports have a role. Having heroes such as Jackie Robinson or Jesse Owens to inspire us and provoke our moral conscience is useful and desirable to get to where we all should want to be as a society.

As to your second point, I'm not sure I agree with your claim that we've become more immoral in general. Certainly, in some ways we have, but in others I think we're better off than we used to be. One of the greatest moral injustices in history was (is) slavery, and I'd place Jim Crow as a nice, big, fat second. And if you look behind the facade of 19th Century Victorian puritanism, you'll see plenty of bawdy behavior--opium smoking, whoring, orgies, etc. And violent crime has actually been trending down for decades. On the other hand, I think we need to get back to a greater emphasis on promoting things such as not having kids out of wedlock. The family is our first line of defense to creating a better society. If one parent is struggling with two or three jobs just trying to put food on the table (or a roof over their heads), getting out of poverty and having the time to properly raise children can be problematic. Odds of success go up with two parents. That's just a fact.

If the family is such a bulwark of morality, then shouldn't we make having families as easy as possible economically?

 

[Ahlevah]

I've noticed the police aren't harassing the homeless vagrants who gather under the trees in the park near our two dog parks. Maybe the police have been told to hold off on the vagrants and pay attention to the city parks that have been closed.
I wonder how they use the drive thrus at the local fast food restaurants where you can't go in.

I've been curious how these soup kitchens and rescue missions, some of which are huge and feed hundreds of people each day, are handling these restrictions. Are they giving the homeless take-out or what? And many of these places depend on other businesses such as thrift stores and donations of excess food from restaurants. It has to be tougher than usual saving poor souls these days.

 

[Ahlevah]

If the family is such a bulwark of morality, then shouldn't we make having families as easy as possible economically?

That's a question of policy certainly worth discussing. Tax policy, for example, has been a double-edged sword in this regard.

 

[phattonez]

That's a question of policy certainly worth discussing. Tax policy, for example, has been a double-edged sword in this regard.

In what way?

 

[BahamaBob]

So they taxed importers to fund the government?

I did not know that.

Republican donors love cheap overseas labor. Dem donors too.

We have built a situation where low wages have been occluded by cheap Chinese goods.

If we had to buy American goods at American prices our wages wouldn't come close to making ends meet.

And since congresscritters work for donors and not voters they are not going to do anything to cross them.

The labor cost being the reason for lost jobs is a false concept. Almost nothing is built by hand now. Nearly everything we purchase from China is stamped out by a machine, there is very little labor involved. This was not the case back in the 70's and A 80's when these manufacturing jobs left the US. Robotics and other manufacturing advances have greatly reduced the amount of labor needed to manufacture an item. Even big ticket items like cars only have 10 to 15 hours of labor in them. For Autos, labor amounts to about 10% of the costs. In many cases the costs of transporting the products exceeds the labor savings.

The real reason these jobs are not coming back is the cost of building a manufacturing facility and restrictions imposed by the EPA. In some cases finding a suitable work force is also a problem.

 

[jaypatriot]

I've been curious how these soup kitchens and rescue missions, some of which are huge and feed hundreds of people each day, are handling these restrictions. Are they giving the homeless take-out or what? And many of these places depend on other businesses such as thrift stores and donations of excess food from restaurants. It has to be tougher than usual saving poor souls these days.

Those are good questions. I could certainly get answers from the vagrants in the park who wait for people to feed them.
But then I would have to approach them and talk to them. I'm not too good with vagrants. Besides, they might start asking me for money.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Sure it is. If people were honorable they could come to an agreement based on a handshake. Since sometimes they're not, we've created all of these civil legal constructs such as contracts and courts and judges and motions and yada, yada, yada. Being honest in one's intent and keeping one's word is a moral issue. That's what I wanted to discuss and not permit people to hide behind the law simply because it is the law. Laws aren't always morally right or just.

I'm not sure there's much to discuss. Your position is apparently that if renters end up short of money to pay rent, then to remain "moral" or "honorable" in your opinion the renter should self-evict before the landlord has a chance to formally evict. Okie dokie.

 

[BahamaBob]

They're going up a small percent each year. I'm talking about a massive increase in property tax for landlords. If they could increase rent to cover it, then why aren't they doing it now and just taking it as profit?

Simple economics. They are competing with other rentals in their area. If you increase a cost on all rental property, they will all just pass that shared cost along. That is shown at gas stations all the time. When they all get the same additional cost they all pass it along. In addition, that tax will also apply to homes in the area and increase the cost of owning a home. Due to this increase cost of home ownership, fewer people will be able to buy homes. This will force more people to have to rent making more demand. This increased demand will enable the landlord to make additional increases in rent.

 

[Ahlevah]

In what way?

You mean how has tax policy been a double-edged sword? Well, if you're married filing jointly, you get a larger standard deduction. Sometimes there's a marriage penalty in the tax schedules, sometimes a bonus, etc.

 

[Ahlevah]

I'm not sure there's much to discuss. Your position is apparently that if renters end up short of money to pay rent, then to remain "moral" or "honorable" in your opinion the renter should self-evict before the landlord has a chance to formally evict. Okie dokie.

No, I don't see anything wrong with talking to the landlord and trying to work out a compromise or payment plan or whatever. All he can do is say no. Where I have a problem is renters making demands of the landlord as though they have an inalienable right to stiff him or demand that he make concessions simply because of the circumstances. If he's a douche then he's a douche, and get ready to pack your bags.

 

[BahamaBob]

I think it is the moral obligation of the lessee to honor his/her contract and pay the agreed upon rent. Not honoring your contract can result in several consequence that will not benefit you. First, depending on the state you can be charged with a crime. In some states it is considered grand theft. Second, your credit will be ruined for years. It will become much more difficult to get a credit card or buy anything on credit. Having a low credit score can also cause your insurance rates to rise. Third, your landlord can garnish your wages or income tax returns even years after the event. Fourth, no one in their right mind will rent to you. You might as well find yourself a cardboard box and move to the street corner.