It’s amazing that rent control is ever implemented any other way. The more traditional way ends up in a situation where young people trying to establish themselves are on the hook to subsidize old people who have had a lifetime to amass their wealth, which is pretty silly.

No, they are not. The defining feature of a commodity is that it is interchangeable.

If you in Ontario try to charge me too much for a bushel of wheat, I’ll laugh and buy it from a guy in Saskatchewan selling it at a reasonable price instead. Makes no difference to me. The product is the same either way.

If I try to charge you too much for a house in Ontario, it would make no difference to you to move to Saskatchewan? I suspect not. They are not equivalent products. Living in the Ontario home will be a very different experience to living in the Saskatchewan home.

If housing were a commodity, a lot of our problems would be solved. But, housing is not. It even has a popular slogan to remind you of that fact: Location, location, location.

@WiseThat@lemmy.ca’s presentation is scary – no doubt purposefully so – but all it suggests is that some believe that contracts entered into within the purview of family law should be treated as contracts, and not be some handwavvy thing that cannot be understood or predicted upon until a court makes an arbitrary decision. I expect most see family law as something that has become a complete joke.

You don’t have to enter into contracts. Having someone hold a gun to your back wouldn’t satisfy a court’s determination that you entered into a contract willfully. These are only applicable to people who actually want to be bound by such terms. No different than any other contract situation outside of the purview of family law, such as an agreement made between business partners.

You know what would restore integrity? consequences.

Well, we’re the top boss. We hired the MPPs, who hired the Premier. Either we have to get on our MPP employees to tar and feather him, or we have to do it ourselves. The underlings beneath won’t. That is not how power dynamics work. It must come from the top down.

but remember who has the most power to change these standards. Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men.

Not really. Power has traditionally been held by couples, with men putting on the act and women pulling the strings behind the scenes. Our forefathers even created an entire institution known as marriage to establish these alliances formally. In fact, for a long, time women were more likely to be a part of the anti-suffragism movement than of the suffragism movement.

Even voting rights at the time were attached to land, not people. Before industrialization, it was impractical to own land without an entire family available to tend to it. A single man would never be able to cut the wood, grow the crops, care for the animals, and do all the household chores. There isn’t enough time in the day. As such, land ownership too was for couples – thus voting was for couples.

Industrialization was the turning point. It brought increasing opportunities to live a life alone, and those alone started growing more and more disgruntled about a world made for couples.

I believe men do have the power to change this culture of emotional isolationism but it will require self-reflection, effort and a strong demand from oneself and other men to be willing to seek liberation- at the risk of what comes with shaking up the status quo.

I don’t. Such movements happen because of technical advancement. Industrialization, as mentioned, was a pivotal time not only for suffrage but a number of movements. The rise of automation, freeing even more hands from the kitchen, was also a significant period with respect to these topics. These things would have never happened without those new, at the time, technologies changing the way we live.

When the world changes, then people change. There is little evidence that people can change ahead of the world. After all, things happen for a reason. There was logic in giving power to couples at some point in history – until the world changed and it no longer made sense.

Similarly, men are guarded today for a reason. Until some technical advancement lifts that reason from hanging over their heads, it isn’t going anywhere. Going to war against an immovable object doesn’t yield well.

Imagine all the social housing we could’ve built with that money instead.

Depends on how well pipeline building skills translate to home building skills, I guess. There isn’t anyone accustomed to building houses that is free to build more. They are booked up for years to come. Money only helps if what you want to buy is available for purchase.

If a sealed tube will suffice as a home then you may be on to something!