4 ms·

you've unwittingly described the real source of the fabulous status of the british royal family

tomrod 2y ago
Indeed, the very notion of feudalism and royalty is based on land barons.
kibwen 2y ago
That "lord" in "landlord" ain't there for no reason. Are people finally prepared to understand that landlords are just the modern incarnation of parasitic aristocracy?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mrangle 2y ago
  One might think. But common and even corporate landlords are not that powerful. See the fact that the FBI is raiding them for price fixing. Which they should, as rent prices are a major political instability pressure point and a major factor in the unspoken social contract. Private landlords exploiting tech to destabilize housing needs to be checked without quarter. Federal Police virtually never raid actual aristocrats in such a public manner, and especially not with a focus in their livelihood. Remember that the aristocracy was traditionally a powerful position: collectively challenging the King and often winning. The aristocracy actually morphed into parliamentary government, which is the dominant government throughout the West. That's where you find the legacy that you thought resided with modern landlords. While some might still earn a living in that manner: making and wielding the law long ago became more attractive.
  - ysofunny 2y ago
    I think this has led to parliaments being confused with legislatures; a similarly sublte distinction exists between prime ministers and presidents. I worry this kinds of apparent loses sublte distinction will be politically abused in the coming election under the scenario were the direct vote count and the electoral college suggest different winners
    - mrangle 2y ago
      I think that you are unnecessarily getting lost in semantics. Regardless, I'll clear up my meaning. By "parliament" I'm indeed referring to a legislature or a body of lawmakers that passes law. Often, that body is named "Parliament". In the US, it's Congress. My meaning would exclude any body with the name of Parliament that does not make laws. Though, I'd acknowledge that such a system would likely be a proto legislature and carry lawmaking influence. Prime Minster and President are just titles. Their function in any one government would reveal their role, from diplomat to commander to figurehead. The "direct vote count" does not suggest a winner because it isn't a thing in the US except at the State level and in the minds of wishful thinkers. I have no idea what you mean by the relevance of a "subtle distinction" in that context.
- hn_version_0023 2y ago
  Fortunately the solution to this problem is the same in the future as it was in the past.
- cscurmudgeon 2y ago
  So the 50 year old who rents out extra space in his house (built or purchased through his hard work over decade) is an aristocrat? https://junehomes.com/blog/2023/01/19/who-are-todays-landlords/#generation https://junehomes.com/blog/2023/01/19/who-are-todays-landlor...
  - defrost 2y ago
    A minority. While it is asserted in your link that: 35% of landlords were between the age of 55 to 64 years there is no such claim that all were merely renting out an extra room. It's more fruitful to look at the landlord power distribution of number of properties per landlord and cast those renting two or more houses toward the "(small a) aristocrat" category .. with those renting out multiple million dollar plus houses in dense inner city upscale suburbs likely being very well heeled.
astrange 2y ago
High housing costs in the UK are not caused by the royal family. They're caused by the UK (and Ireland) having the worst planning system in the world which makes it illegal to ever build any new housing. It's actually even worse than the US - at least zoning implies you're allowed to do something by right. The US also has a better tax system since it uses property taxes more often, which reduces land values.

Indeed, the very notion of feudalism and royalty is based on land barons.

That "lord" in "landlord" ain't there for no reason. Are people finally prepared to understand that landlords are just the modern incarnation of parasitic aristocracy?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mrangle 2y ago
One might think. But common and even corporate landlords are not that powerful. See the fact that the FBI is raiding them for price fixing. Which they should, as rent prices are a major political instability pressure point and a major factor in the unspoken social contract. Private landlords exploiting tech to destabilize housing needs to be checked without quarter. Federal Police virtually never raid actual aristocrats in such a public manner, and especially not with a focus in their livelihood. Remember that the aristocracy was traditionally a powerful position: collectively challenging the King and often winning. The aristocracy actually morphed into parliamentary government, which is the dominant government throughout the West. That's where you find the legacy that you thought resided with modern landlords. While some might still earn a living in that manner: making and wielding the law long ago became more attractive.
- ysofunny 2y ago
  I think this has led to parliaments being confused with legislatures; a similarly sublte distinction exists between prime ministers and presidents. I worry this kinds of apparent loses sublte distinction will be politically abused in the coming election under the scenario were the direct vote count and the electoral college suggest different winners
  - mrangle 2y ago
    I think that you are unnecessarily getting lost in semantics. Regardless, I'll clear up my meaning. By "parliament" I'm indeed referring to a legislature or a body of lawmakers that passes law. Often, that body is named "Parliament". In the US, it's Congress. My meaning would exclude any body with the name of Parliament that does not make laws. Though, I'd acknowledge that such a system would likely be a proto legislature and carry lawmaking influence. Prime Minster and President are just titles. Their function in any one government would reveal their role, from diplomat to commander to figurehead. The "direct vote count" does not suggest a winner because it isn't a thing in the US except at the State level and in the minds of wishful thinkers. I have no idea what you mean by the relevance of a "subtle distinction" in that context.
hn_version_0023 2y ago
Fortunately the solution to this problem is the same in the future as it was in the past.
cscurmudgeon 2y ago
So the 50 year old who rents out extra space in his house (built or purchased through his hard work over decade) is an aristocrat? https://junehomes.com/blog/2023/01/19/who-are-todays-landlords/#generation https://junehomes.com/blog/2023/01/19/who-are-todays-landlor...
- defrost 2y ago
  A minority. While it is asserted in your link that: 35% of landlords were between the age of 55 to 64 years there is no such claim that all were merely renting out an extra room. It's more fruitful to look at the landlord power distribution of number of properties per landlord and cast those renting two or more houses toward the "(small a) aristocrat" category .. with those renting out multiple million dollar plus houses in dense inner city upscale suburbs likely being very well heeled.

astrange 2y ago

High housing costs in the UK are not caused by the royal family. They're caused by the UK (and Ireland) having the worst planning system in the world which makes it illegal to ever build any new housing. It's actually even worse than the US - at least zoning implies you're allowed to do something by right. The US also has a better tax system since it uses property taxes more often, which reduces land values.