3 ms·

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,

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.

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.