• Subscript5676@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Oh you won’t be bleed dry by a malicious government. You’d just have literally nowhere legal for you to go. It’d make what ICE is doing down south look tame; there’d be a lot more people who believe or is made to believe that you should gtfo.

    And capitalists aren’t just bleeding us dry through land and land alone. Just look at, and I’m waving my hand violently, everything else.

    Your proposition is to trade one extreme for another, and all I’m telling you is that it doesn’t work. Why are we trying to jump from one pit into another?

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t see how you think the current system is better. Plenty of people already have “nowhere legal” to go.

      When someone who can’t afford a mortgage or rental right now, they really only have two options. Homeless shelters, if there is space that will take them, and then specific public parks at night (as allowed by the Supreme court of Canada when enough shelter space is not available). They can and are regularly locked up temporarily for trespassing on private property.

      You act like the government would just start instantly kicking out everyone if they owned the land. Why would they do that? What’s the motive? How do the politicians benefit from such an action? I know and can explain exactly how capitalists benefit from owning the land.

      The worst situation you’re going to see is specific people being displaced more easily for development, but that’s literally the point of this. Oh no, grandma and grandpa can’t keep living in a half acre lot 3 minutes from the downtown core anymore, they have to move into a condo or move further out to have a giant house. That’s not a problem, that’s a solution.

      You bring up a boogeyman like ICE in the US, but how would that even apply to government ownership of land in Canada? We don’t have a large illegal immigrant population, and even the racial tensions we do have are mild as toast compared to what has existed in the US for a long time. Even if we took the current far-right conservatives, I don’t see any indication that this policy would be used to do… anything.

      Explain to me against who, and how, a nazi government would use the government ownership of land in Canada against Canadians, that they couldn’t already do today if they were voted in.

      • Subscript5676@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        This is going absolutely nowhere. I don’t know why you’re thinking that I think the current system is better. I’ve said that I don’t believe so. What I’m also saying is that I don’t believe that governments can make sure that we won’t be on the streets either.

        And you’re throwing away my arguments and conveniently forgetting about them and essentially putting me up as some kind of convenient strawman for whatever you’re trying to say. Why wouldn’t a government kick a bunch of people out so that they can build that resort for people that they know would vote for them? A “large illegal immigrant population” is simply a convenient target down south for the fascists Republicunts to channel national anger at so that the people would vote for them. While Canada isn’t as polarized as the States is, and racial tensions aren’t as high, it does exist and isn’t something to dismiss, and given the right events, it could fan the flames. And it doesn’t have to be racial. It can be on nationalistic lines, and I can guarantee you that that sentiment is definitely on the rise.