Sorry, to clarify... Are you saying that because we have public transit no one can own cars anymore?
The generous way to read the post above is an arrangement where property ownership can be both public and private - possibly where rental units are majority state owned and private ownership is more concentrated in actual residents.
>” ...real solution to the housing crises is the abolishment of professional landlords... Why [] support a system where people can own many properties[...]
Treating housing as an investment vehicle is fundamentally incompatible...
It’s akin to saying most transit should be gov owned: cars, trucks, trains, planes, ships... they may allow you to own one private vehicle.
Eeeeh, in the long run I think it'll just become unnecessary to own a personal car for most people if self-driving car fleets become a thing - I dunno... it might be a luxury like owning your own boat, if you're vacationing on a lake you can always rent one so why pay to maintain something you very rarely need... more apt might be to consider it equivalent to owning your own train car.
At any rate I don't think personal property ownership should be made illegal, it could just be made to cost - taxi companies are taxed for running a fleet of vehicles and charging people to ride on them, that sort of mass property ownership could be similarly taxed.
I grew up in Boston and it actually had a wonderful public transit system - assuming you're a comfortable in the city and not fearful of who you'll bump into on the bus.
The generous way to read the post above is an arrangement where property ownership can be both public and private - possibly where rental units are majority state owned and private ownership is more concentrated in actual residents.