On the other hand I kind of wonder, why a tenant should be allowed to behave like a flat-owner and sit on a flat for years by subletting it.
I never did sublet so now that I’m forced to think about it I wonder: Do I have the right to do that?
If someone leaves for a short time like 6 months I understand it and find it reasonable.
The key word is democratic. Do you believe in 1 person, one vote? Every vote counts. The “owner” ? A cooperative belongs to all the members. A nationilised industry belongs to the state. A private company belongs to the “owner” or the share-holders. Does it really matter that much which form, what matters is does it function for the majority. My point is that all the western democracies are socialist, some more, some less. That is their strength.
Explain how socialism, which is the public ownership of the means of production, is possible without infringing on ownership.
The socialism argument is very relevant to the coming referenda.
For the tenancy laws, a property may be in private ownership but there are regulations and restrictions that mean that the “free market” is not the only factor in determining the rent etc etc. The “owner” does and should not have total control over the property.
The bizarre situation is that “socialist” has a negative connotation for some, whereas for me it is synonymous with natural and civilised.
Where do you see me say that the SP is “anywhere close to Soviet-style communist parties of the Warsaw Pact?” (TM komsomolez)
Where do I “link the SP to the Gulag system”? (TM komsomolez)
If anybody is to calm down it’s the instigator that is komsomolez.
Next question please
The main aim in Switzerland is to restrict speculation. In a country like Switzerland where the majority is renting (but speculation is extremly interesting) this is important for social peace (oh God, what expression have I used here, I prepare for bashing 
)
To me too “socialist” is synonym for natural and civilized behaviour. But then I’ve never lived in countries that live out that term in other ways.
yeah and you didn’t score points with me on that either. Was not jumping down your throat a mistake then? 
What does TM mean? Only komsomolez is allowed to answer?
marton, shame on you.
I mean it though, I don’t understand the TM.
Hilarious, isn’t it?
Tenancy laws don’t apply until you let. In which case there may be the interests of a 2nd party to consider but that’s at least one order removed.
ETA:
And again: Explain how socialism is possible without infringing on ownership rights. The current referenda demonstrate that it’s exactly the other way round, infringement is unavoidable if you move towards socialism. This is pretty much the epitome of a zero-sum game.
@curley TM is trademark. You can’t quote and make that visible with the predefined means without making a post unreadable.
Exactly. This word was in the name of the country I was born in and I hate it with all my heart.
I don’t agree that all the modern western democracies are socialist. For example, USA is not socialist at all.
And less and less natural or civilized too.
Joke aside, is the US system what appeals to you fully then? (Forget the Trump-hype or -problem just now).
addendum: I understand what you mean and that this discussion possibly triggers old memories and feelings. I think in short in Switzerland we talk about social, not socialist. And there is a subtle difference in the meaning of those two words.
Dragging this further off-topic:
The US incorporates many socialist elements within its predominantly capitalist system. These elements include programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment benefits, which are funded by taxes to provide a safety net for citizens. Additionally, policies such as minimum wage laws, public education, police forces, fire departments also reflect socialist influences.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not advocating policing for hire but am just observing that today they exist following socialist rather than capitalist systems.
The modern western democracies all have mixed economies, some more mixed than others. The USA has a fine socialist tradition - I grew up on John Steinbeck. Communism is a different evil and has given socialism a bad name.
On topic, judging by latest polls it is quite possible that all four referenda will win (i.e. a no vote). Which would be quite remarkable as all four proposals are initiated by the government after a parliamentary process and not some quirky initiative.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you but all four come about from organisations collecting enough signatures to send the decision to the people.
Previously the people almost always supported the government, not so much recently.
Correct. These are referenda taken against the government proposals for specific laws. So a no means that the referendum against the proposed law wins.
We have recently seen a lot of proposals backed by the government / parliament fail in the public vote. This is not a problem as such as this is exactly what this mechanism is for. But it begs the question whether there is a growing divide between the lawmakers in Berne and the public. Or whether their ability to communicate changes is just really bad.
In my case, I just don’t trust the bar-stewards any more.
For example -
*giving landlords more power, when the federal council says covered by existing law.
*Packaging all the motorway proposals together knowing local people are opposed.
*Saying the health insurance company changes are revenue neutral, when obviously they are not.
I think these guys have just lost touch with their constituents. But that’s just my 2 centimes.
On the two rent issues, I am actually indifferent. Difficult to see much change in practice. The sublet thing seems to clarify the rules which I have sympathy for. For own use, no change in practice in my view as it is already easy to terminate.
I don’t like the motorway proposal for various reasons. It is a lot of money for something that historically has often just moved the congestion elsewhere. Of the six projects, I know two quite well and I am not sure they are needed. Lastly, as you said these should be more local decisions.
They come from the government but organisations collected signatures so that the populace can vote about them. Had the bills been generally acceptable or desirable we wouldn’t even need to vote.