@King Arts
1. Govt. is breaking the written contract signed with mutual consent. That is a direct violation of law.
2. Most Land Lords are small business owners not huge millionaires. Many are retirees who are living off their rental income of 1 or 2 homes. The moratorium has destroyed those owners.
3. Giving shit to some at the expense of others is just another form of taxation and welfare. In this case, it's actual chattel slavery. All the benefits of the owners efforts are being withheld. It's like Rome just you have the analogy reversed. The owners are now the slaves of their tennants.
1. Government can change the law, adjust things, or make previously legal things illegal. And no taking the land lords house isn't a violation of the law.
2. There are a few ways to respond either they are parasites who just take a cut of wealth because they own land but don't produce anything themselves, or another thing is if they are living off the rental income solely and need it what have they been doing with the moratorium? How have they survived the past year with no money coming in if what you say is true?
And the mass eminent domain was just an extreme example because the way the American constitution and legal system is set up is dumb. The preferred strategy is to extend the moratorium one or two more months and inform everyone that all debts that were incurred during this time will be declared null and void. The renters would start paying again next month and the land lords will pretend that the past year did not exist. This isn't some crazy liberal socialist idea only greedy money worshippers should be against this, the Christian response should be against big money, and to try and recreate a year of jubilee, you know that time in the old testament where Ancient Israel forgave all debts, and freed all slaves every 7 years.
3. Are you a land lord? This is either hilariously ignorant or ridiculously lie. No land lords are not slaves, they are not bought and sold at auctions and live to serve the renters. They don't get forced to work for free, they can't be killed, beaten, or raped without repercussions.
In Republican Rome after the Punic wars Rome had an influx of slaves coming in since they became masters of the Mediterranean, and this was before the Marian reforms so the Roman army was made up of citizen soldiers who mustered when it was time for war. Most citizens were small tenant farmers, while they were away they couldn't farm so their fields lay fallow and rich land lords were able to buy it up at low prices(black rock?) now here this situation could be stabilized if the land holders would just hire the low class plebian citizens to be farmers and rent the land from them. But the difference as I said was slavery, slavery is free labor so there was no way a free farmer could compete and get hired compared to a slave who would work for free, thus the free Romans migrated to cities and this sets the stage for the late Republic. Where Optimates represented the interests of rich patricians fought against Populares like the Gracchi who wanted to redistribute land so that the big land lords would be broken up and Rome could go back to the concept of being a citizen farmer, then later Marius made the Reforms that made the Legions professional but also made it no longer loyal to Rome since the soldiers weren't owning land, but instead got wealth from their leaders, and it eventually led to coups, and Caesar eventually putting the Republic down and Octavian literally making the Empire. The things that fucked the Republic were rich land owners having land instead of the people who actually live on a plot of land, and slavery. Also in the end the Populares won, so I'd rather conservatives not follow the same route instead of prostituting yourselves to the rich, just go with the will of the people the majority and support those who are poorer. If that means land lords don't get to make money for last year well they can eat that loss, they will still get money coming in from future rent.
