3 ms·

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 rig

by 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 scoofy 3y ago

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.