Opinion of big old houses

[Simfan34]

[politicus]

What kind of question is that? Freedom houses of course!

[Vasall des Midas]

Some of those pictured are not big, and a couple are very ugly.
The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

[Lіef]

I wouldn't call any of those "houses." Estates or mansions maybe.

[Simfan34]

Some of those pictured are not big, and a couple are very ugly.

Not big- please tell me which. Of those, Hyde Park is perhaps my least favorite, but "very ugly"?

[dead0man]

I enjoy looking at them and am glad some rich people keep them up, but I would never want to live in one.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Those are excessively big. More reasonably big old houses, the kind that could reasonably be lived in by a smallish extended family unit without 'help', are of course freedom houses.

[dead0man]

My favorite house in Omaha.  It looks about twice as creepy in person and I doubt I'd want to live in it...but I'd LOVE to own it/rent it out to young "goths" going to Creighton.  I bet you could make an awesome short, low budget horror movie in it.

[Simfan34]

Those are excessively big. More reasonably big old houses, the kind that could reasonably be lived in by a smallish extended family unit without 'help', are of course freedom houses.

I've seen the personal spaces in some of these manses, they're surprisingly intimate. Most of their size is derived from the spacious reception rooms and of course service rooms and servant quarters.

Of course, I have no qualms whatsoever with having domestic staff. Indeed, if all goes to plan I could see myself having a full time maid and valet, and part time cook and chauffeur- all while single. While that's unlikely to be the case, I have no problem with the idea.

[Sibboleth]

Some of those pictured are not big, and a couple are very ugly.
The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

This is a very good answer.

[Oakvale]

Some of the ones you posted are okay aesthetically, although most aren't, and all are terrible houses as symbols of capitalist oppression.

[Simfan34]

The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

Stuff like this makes me want to be an Objectivist.

[asexual trans victimologist]

The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

Stuff like this makes me want to be an Objectivist.

Please no.

[Simfan34]

The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

Stuff like this makes me want to be an Objectivist.

Please no.

But it's very stupid.

[asexual trans victimologist]

The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

Stuff like this makes me want to be an Objectivist.

Please no.

But it's very stupid.

As is Objectivism. You're better as a somewhat traditionalist conservative. Trust me.

[ChairmanSanchez]

What is the 8th building depicted? It looks like it is in DC.

[Simfan34]

The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

Stuff like this makes me want to be an Objectivist.

Please no.

But it's very stupid.

As is Objectivism. You're better as a somewhat traditionalist conservative. Trust me.

I know, but really... that comment inspired a little bit of rage.

What is the 8th building depicted? It looks like it is in DC.

Hyde Park, mansion of the Vanderbilts. It's in NY State.

[Oakvale]

I don't really see how Lewis' post is apparently so terrible.

[Simfan34]

I don't really see how Lewis' post is apparently so terrible.

I mean- take them over and just give them to people? Really?

[Oakvale]

I don't really see how Lewis' post is apparently so terrible.

I mean- take them over and just give them to people? Really?

Why not? It's not like they're especially useful if they're just sitting there owned by some random riches.

[Simfan34]

I don't really see how Lewis' post is apparently so terrible.

I mean- take them over and just give them to people? Really?

Why not? It's not like they're especially useful if they're just sitting there owned by some random riches.

But whose business is that but their own? They sit there looking pretty. That's useful enough to me.

[Lіef]

Some of the ones you posted are okay aesthetically, although most aren't, and all are terrible houses as symbols of capitalist oppression.

Now, now. Some of them are symbols of feudal oppression as well. Or capitalist oppression with a feudal oppression facade, at least.

[Simfan34]

Some of the ones you posted are okay aesthetically, although most aren't, and all are terrible houses as symbols of capitalist oppression.

Now, now. Some of them are symbols of feudal oppression as well. Or capitalist oppression with a feudal oppression facade, at least.

Very good! Now, which ones?

[asexual trans victimologist]

I don't really see how Lewis' post is apparently so terrible.

I mean- take them over and just give them to people? Really?

Why not? It's not like they're especially useful if they're just sitting there owned by some random riches.

But whose business is that but their own? They sit there looking pretty. That's useful enough to me.

I think the question is why you're particularly shocked and/or appalled at what Lewis said relative to normal leftist rhetoric on topics like this (unless that's something that always bothers you).

Mind you, I don't agree with Lewis's proposed expropriation in this case, mainly because I think that all of these houses have great historical value that ought to be preserved, also because I don't think tenements row on row in larger buildings are really particularly desirable living spaces all things considered (I can be sold on row-houses and flats above shops).

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Some of those pictured are not big, and a couple are very ugly.
The majority are freedom houses that should be subdivided into tenements and turned over to the people, unless there is specific reason to keep this particular house as a museum, in which case this is what should of course be done.

This is the correct response.