3 ms·

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

by 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.
- dalke 3y ago
  Repeating myself, you do not know what aristocracy means. In late Middle Ages England, I could be a copyhold tenant to the mesne lord, with the copyhold passed on by inheritance to my heir, following the traditional inheritance scheme of the manor. I do not own the land - the mesne lord does. Yet I have the right to live there, and the right to pass on that right through inheritance. According to you, that makes me - a copyholder - part of the aristocracy?! No. That's an absurd re-definition. You may want the equivalent of new enclosure laws so that complicated traditional land use practices which give a peasant the inheritable right to graze a few sheep in the local commons is replaced by the simple exclusive control of a local lord. That's how lords and capital holders traditionally gain more power and control. That still doesn't mean it's meaningful to say those peasants were part of the aristocracy. You grew up in a culture which prioritizes a certain view of land ownership that dates back the feudal system, then over time the local lords gained strong control over the land and government, followed by the imperial era where land possession and exclusive control brought in untold riches. You and I come from an ex-colony of that imperial system, which respected private land and exclusive ownership only when it involved certain people - for others it could be taken by force. "A man's home is his castle" was only valid for rich white men, and those with implied fealty to rich white men (aka "real Americans"). Sweden never had a feudal system, nor (despite being a kingdom) a strong form of aristocracy. Socialism has a much stronger history here than in the US. Its traditions are therefore different. Don't try to interpret it all through what appears to be an understanding of 19th century English aristocracy. And even if I'm completely wrong, who care? Inheritable land ownership and nepotistic transfer of corporate ownership lead to extreme centralizations of power which cannot be matched by a Swedish rental agreement. The Wallenberg family controls a substantial fraction of the Swedish economy. A first-hand rental contract had limited use of about 80 square meters.

by dalke 3y ago

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.

dalke 3y ago
Repeating myself, you do not know what aristocracy means. In late Middle Ages England, I could be a copyhold tenant to the mesne lord, with the copyhold passed on by inheritance to my heir, following the traditional inheritance scheme of the manor. I do not own the land - the mesne lord does. Yet I have the right to live there, and the right to pass on that right through inheritance. According to you, that makes me - a copyholder - part of the aristocracy?! No. That's an absurd re-definition. You may want the equivalent of new enclosure laws so that complicated traditional land use practices which give a peasant the inheritable right to graze a few sheep in the local commons is replaced by the simple exclusive control of a local lord. That's how lords and capital holders traditionally gain more power and control. That still doesn't mean it's meaningful to say those peasants were part of the aristocracy. You grew up in a culture which prioritizes a certain view of land ownership that dates back the feudal system, then over time the local lords gained strong control over the land and government, followed by the imperial era where land possession and exclusive control brought in untold riches. You and I come from an ex-colony of that imperial system, which respected private land and exclusive ownership only when it involved certain people - for others it could be taken by force. "A man's home is his castle" was only valid for rich white men, and those with implied fealty to rich white men (aka "real Americans"). Sweden never had a feudal system, nor (despite being a kingdom) a strong form of aristocracy. Socialism has a much stronger history here than in the US. Its traditions are therefore different. Don't try to interpret it all through what appears to be an understanding of 19th century English aristocracy. And even if I'm completely wrong, who care? Inheritable land ownership and nepotistic transfer of corporate ownership lead to extreme centralizations of power which cannot be matched by a Swedish rental agreement. The Wallenberg family controls a substantial fraction of the Swedish economy. A first-hand rental contract had limited use of about 80 square meters.