[redorb]

Your paying for the right to live there. What the money you pay is used for is none of your business.

I find it a lot healthier to not worry about the money after I spend it, it's no longer mine for I have agreed to trade it away.

[throwaway0a5e]

It's not worth worrying about but it's worth caring about IMO.

Buying a sandwich from a sandwich shop who's landlord will likely donate to politicians that want to make your life suck is the smaller stakes but closer to home version of nations buying oil that funds people who hate them.

[kergonath]

> Your paying for the right to live there. What the money you pay is used for is none of your business.

Sure. The moment smug Tory landlords stop nagging me about the price of avocado toast.

[hackerlight]

This libertarian worldview is only coherent for goods like food or computers, where the quality and safety of supply is regulated but the quantity of supply isn't.

Property is a whole other ball game. In every market economy you see tremendous capture of government by landlords. They rig the game by constraining supply. The free choice worldview breaks down given that shelter is a necessity, and the only place I can get it from is this cartel that has 2x-ed the price of the good via their capture of government. That delta in price is theft facilitated by government force, masquerading as a free transaction between consenting parties.

Libertarians are supposed to be against regulatory capture and crony capitalism, and the property market is like a textbook example of this kind of depraved capture of government by special interests.

[dane-pgp]

Well said, but it's interesting that you contrast "goods like food" with "shelter", suggesting that only the latter "is a necessity".

That doesn't invalidate your point, but I think it requires a more subtle argument than if you had given a different example like maybe transport.