Would you still feel that way, about the very first part, if I was to remind you that some of the Russian oligarchs were crime bosses who took power and wealth by force?
Admittedly, it doesn’t have the hereditary rule part but that, for me, would simple fall under “the difference is the passage of time.” I see it much like the difference between a cult and a religion.
As a British person, I had a few awkward conversations with other British people when I’ve asked them to explain the difference between a royal or a higher level aristocrat and an oligarch.
It seems to be something to do with the length of time society had to endure their bastardry. Well, it’s either that or that they’re not from the Oligar region of Russia. Its one of the two.
I mean, for all you know that could be because they’re not giving enough money away to anyone calling themselves an artist.
*So, giving that exact amount of money away to anyone calling themselves an artist doesn’t work, for you personally.
*ACAB, in their capacity as cops.
There might be repercussions, if we get caught though.
I mean, you can break any rule, law or agreement without facing repercussions, if you don’t get caught.
Breaking it in any way means you will likely have to pay back any money they gave you immediately.
Personally, I would consider that to be a repercussion.
I mean, who else other than your last employer would it be with?
Rule # 1 of signing an NDA: you’re not allowed to say that you signed an NDA.
That would make sense for capitalism, if humanity didn’t have to have its permanent, essential characteristics beaten, traumatised and groomed out of them with land seizures, branding, whipping, workhouses, schools, prisons, debtors prisons, being forced to sell their children, slavery and the threat of homelessness and starvation for hundreds of years.
People didn’t just accept either of those two systems and there’s nothing remotely inherent about them. They were both forced on people through violence or the threat of it.
Owning something isn’t a job, even if you stamp your feet and strop about it really hard. Thats why no definition of the word defines it as a job. Stop making up meanings for words, its pathetic.
Landlord
a person or organization that owns a building or an area of land and is paid by other people for the use of it:
NOT A JOB.
No, owning something, in of itself, isn’t a job. For example, you own the device on which you’re typing you’re utter nonsense. Is you owning your device a job?
Have you ever seen a job vacancy for “landlord”?
No, of course not. Thats why “landlord” isn’t a job.
No, you can’t just make up words either. It’s deliberately misused slang, at best. Even then, I didn’t say it was or wasn’t a word. Please try and keep the sophistry to a minimum. I said it wasn’t a verb as “landlord” isn’t a job and “landlording” isn’t a doing word.
That’s recruitment, not being a landlord. Recruitment is work.
Regardless of what names they may or may not have, owning something, in of itself, isn’t a job.
You’re making this seem a lot harder than it actually is.
Again, you’re wrong. “Landlord” sn’t work.
landlord
a person or organization that owns a room, building, or piece of land that someone else pays rent to use
You can’t just make up you’re own definition of words. A landlord can outsource all of that to a management company and still be a landlord.
Maintenance is work and people should be paid for work. However, the landlord will get paid regardless of who does it. Thats because “landlord” isn’t work which is why “landlording” isn’t a verb.
Its not me who’s wrong, as owning something isn’t work.
Now, they might do some repairs or maintenance but thats actual work and not what they’re paid for.
What they’re paid for is for doing no work and they, like shareholders, are the only people who expect to be paid for doing no work.
Our society is so messed up that they even have people declaring ownership is work, on their behalf.
100% and they should swap jobs too. You hear from Christians all the time “this is the devils work” or “Satan made me do it.”
Conversely, how often do you hear this?
“What, that place? That one their? Yeah, that place is heaven on earth.”
Never
But “hell on earth” we hear all the time. You know why?
Because Satan is busy.
Imagine how much work hed do, if he got to be in charge. “Wanna know what will really piss yahweh off?”
they can but they’re so few and far between that they don’t need mentioning. Loads will claim to have been born poor too but experience has left me unable to trust those claims. I even reference the fact that its not literally all off them, so I’m not sure why you needed to mention it again.
All landlords, I was very clear about that but people making money through simply being a middle person sucks too. Nothing close to landlords though which is why I didn’t mention them and they aren’t covered by what I said.
Ah yes, the old “bitter or a hypocrite” trope. It has to be one or the other, as the amoral people who throw it around can’t comprehend a moral objection to exploitation, usually due to poor empathy and even poorer social skills. The only people who want something for doing no work is landlords and shareholders. Its just astral level projection from people born to wealth, who even try to moralise their explanation by claiming everyone else, not born to their privilege and opportunity, must be lazy.
It turns out, they dont care about anyone being bitter or hypothetical, let alone the morality of just about anything. They just really don’t want people talking about inequality or exploitation.
Mid twenties teenagers with 30 year old parents.