4 ms·

Yikes... it seems like you've built aristocracy into the system. I would hate to be someone accidentally not born in Stockholm.

by scoofy 3y ago

dalke 3y ago
I do not think you are using the term "aristocracy" correctly. If you are talking metaphor, the "lord" in "landlord" is a far clearer sign of aristocracy. Capital can be passed down through multiple generations, as the Wallenberg family well knows - now in their fifth generation of ownership. Up until 2003 the Kingdom of Sweden had an actual aristocracy. Renters like me were never part of it.
- scoofy 3y ago
  You are arguing semantics, I am arguing equivalence. If you have a piece of property, that is reserved for your exclusive use, at a price that is below market value, in perpetuity, that can often be passed to your children… then I think we are talking about a distinction without a difference. Perpetual and especially heritable property use (regardless of technical ownership), that exists well below market rates, is a form of landed aristocracy, just without the pomp and titles. I would say the very same thing about property owners who have perpetual and heritable property tax exemptions or perks, and I do in the case of California.
  - emmacharp 3y ago
    I'd say the baseline being argued here (being able to keep living where you live) to be considered "aristocracy" is pretty darned low.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - dalke 3y ago
    I don't think you understand what aristocracy means, I don't think you understand what the equivalency is supposed to be, and I don't think you understand what rights you have with a first hand contract in Sweden. I know you don't know what a first hand contract means, because you incorrectly asserted leases let someone "temporarily occupy a residence", when in Sweden it can be for the life of the renter. Furthermore, while that right can be extended to your wife or children, technically speaking it isn't "inherited" and it isn't simply passed on to your children like a title of nobility would be. You must have lived together for several years, making your home actually your wife/child's home too. Instead of "inherited" like I wrote, it's more like your landlord is required to recognize that additional resident as a new leaser, even if that name isn't on the original contract. And unlike aristocracy, as a renter, you have only limited abilities to remodel. You can't decide on your own to convert the living room and dining room into a great room, or to tear down and replace the bathroom. Only the landlord can make that decision. So, how this is like an aristocracy? > If you have a piece of property, that is reserved for your exclusive use That's another way I can tell you are not Swedish. In the US you can buy up 160 acres, post "no trespassing" signs, and have the government help enforce your exclusive property rights. In Sweden, that prohibition is illegal - most of your land (except that closest to your home) is not for your exclusive use. Others have the right of public access, and trying to enforce exclusivity would considered distasteful, if not immoral. > very same thing about property owners who You may not like the obligations under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and probably don't like various perpetuity clauses in treaties made with Native American nations, but that doesn't make it meaningful to say those property owners who have perpetual and heritable property tax exemptions are therefore members of an aristocracy.
    - scoofy 3y ago
      Firstly when I say a kind of aristocracy, I mean exactly that a kind of one. I mean I'm not really finding anything I disagree with here. I'm familiar with right to roam laws, but to say they allow "access" is in someone passing through, is still, for practical purposes "exclusive use." When you say it isn't "technically" inherited, I mean only that it is de facto inherited, again, a kind of aristocracy. I cannot say I am super familiar with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, as that is from nearly two centuries ago, and was the result of war. But I generally agree with your point about Native American nations. I see the argument that Native American nations as generally more reasonable in that, they are treated as at least quasi-independent states, but I wish that that independence were either more fully recognized or eventually sunset, because, yes, I see having a special class of people within a nation as inherently problematic, and while I wish the circumstances that brought us to a the place we are were different, we are born into the world that we are born into. When a system of de facto privileges, especially when heritable, is set in place in a society, I'm not going to in support of it, especially when, those privileges make life more challenging for those who weren't in a place to take advantages of them when they were conferred.

Yikes... it seems like you've built aristocracy into the system. I would hate to be someone accidentally not born in Stockholm.

by scoofy 3y ago

Yikes... it seems like you've built aristocracy into the system. I would hate to be someone accidentally not born in Stockholm.

dalke 3y ago

I do not think you are using the term "aristocracy" correctly. If you are talking metaphor, the "lord" in "landlord" is a far clearer sign of aristocracy. Capital can be passed down through multiple generations, as the Wallenberg family well knows - now in their fifth generation of ownership. Up until 2003 the Kingdom of Sweden had an actual aristocracy. Renters like me were never part of it.

scoofy 3y ago
You are arguing semantics, I am arguing equivalence. If you have a piece of property, that is reserved for your exclusive use, at a price that is below market value, in perpetuity, that can often be passed to your children… then I think we are talking about a distinction without a difference. Perpetual and especially heritable property use (regardless of technical ownership), that exists well below market rates, is a form of landed aristocracy, just without the pomp and titles. I would say the very same thing about property owners who have perpetual and heritable property tax exemptions or perks, and I do in the case of California.
- emmacharp 3y ago
  I'd say the baseline being argued here (being able to keep living where you live) to be considered "aristocracy" is pretty darned low.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- dalke 3y ago
  I don't think you understand what aristocracy means, I don't think you understand what the equivalency is supposed to be, and I don't think you understand what rights you have with a first hand contract in Sweden. I know you don't know what a first hand contract means, because you incorrectly asserted leases let someone "temporarily occupy a residence", when in Sweden it can be for the life of the renter. Furthermore, while that right can be extended to your wife or children, technically speaking it isn't "inherited" and it isn't simply passed on to your children like a title of nobility would be. You must have lived together for several years, making your home actually your wife/child's home too. Instead of "inherited" like I wrote, it's more like your landlord is required to recognize that additional resident as a new leaser, even if that name isn't on the original contract. And unlike aristocracy, as a renter, you have only limited abilities to remodel. You can't decide on your own to convert the living room and dining room into a great room, or to tear down and replace the bathroom. Only the landlord can make that decision. So, how this is like an aristocracy? > If you have a piece of property, that is reserved for your exclusive use That's another way I can tell you are not Swedish. In the US you can buy up 160 acres, post "no trespassing" signs, and have the government help enforce your exclusive property rights. In Sweden, that prohibition is illegal - most of your land (except that closest to your home) is not for your exclusive use. Others have the right of public access, and trying to enforce exclusivity would considered distasteful, if not immoral. > very same thing about property owners who You may not like the obligations under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and probably don't like various perpetuity clauses in treaties made with Native American nations, but that doesn't make it meaningful to say those property owners who have perpetual and heritable property tax exemptions are therefore members of an aristocracy.
  - scoofy 3y ago
    Firstly when I say a kind of aristocracy, I mean exactly that a kind of one. I mean I'm not really finding anything I disagree with here. I'm familiar with right to roam laws, but to say they allow "access" is in someone passing through, is still, for practical purposes "exclusive use." When you say it isn't "technically" inherited, I mean only that it is de facto inherited, again, a kind of aristocracy. I cannot say I am super familiar with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, as that is from nearly two centuries ago, and was the result of war. But I generally agree with your point about Native American nations. I see the argument that Native American nations as generally more reasonable in that, they are treated as at least quasi-independent states, but I wish that that independence were either more fully recognized or eventually sunset, because, yes, I see having a special class of people within a nation as inherently problematic, and while I wish the circumstances that brought us to a the place we are were different, we are born into the world that we are born into. When a system of de facto privileges, especially when heritable, is set in place in a society, I'm not going to in support of it, especially when, those privileges make life more challenging for those who weren't in a place to take advantages of them when they were conferred.