Yeah, it's kind of fringe when leftists say "hurr durr kill landlords." But this seems to be mostly restricted to shitposters on dumpster bins like r/anarchism. I don't see educated ppl supporting this. Why would they need to? They clearly realize it's a problem that erodes

itself when the State can no longer protect it's property norms. I do, however, see many libertarians using this line as a caricature to dismiss the valid argument that landlordism is a result of State privileges handed out to a small class of people. I mean, even orthodoxed

rothbardians should be skeptical of *existing* landlords considering *existing* property is illegitimate. If you can't, at the very least, meet the left halfway on this issue, than you're the one confused. Of course, this doesn't mean we have to be dogmatically anti-rent after

State decree land is abolished. It's not hard to foresee scenarios where the leisure forgone of homesteading is not worth it for some people, thus creating a demand for rent-like opportunities. The issue with absentee landlordism is abandonment is no grounds for justly

retaining ownership. To push back on this logic would be akin to saying person A has died, but person A's property can never be appropriated by anyone else. Even if person A never returns to that property ever again it's theirs forever and always. This is stupid ass thinking. The

counter arguments becomes even more frivolous if you remove some of Rothbard's ideas about "first appropriation." Which in a gist, is what gives the *original* transformers of land higher precedence over future transformers of the same land. I've wrestled with the idea of

trashing first appropriation, there's pros & cons. The main con I see is it could cause a tort nightmare, in ways that it could actually weaken people right to property & thus hinder business. Rothbard gave samples regarding this. However the pro to removing it would be

eliminating all doubt that someone could twist "private property" into a exploitation scenario. It would also kind of blur the lines more between Rothbard's ideas of property and the 19th century individualists ideas of property. Namely, without first appropriation the major

factor in determining property would be labor itself, regardless who's first. And until he does a complete about-face in Nations by Consent, he seems to lean this way regarding it. In the

Tucker-Spooner essay he makes it abundantly clear occupancy & use *is* preferable to existing Capitalist property norms.

TLDR: Libertarians shouldn't be shilling for landlords under any context...period.