Suppose I come up with a way to double yield. Under the current system, I can use the extra money I make to buy out my neighbors and hire people to apply the same technique on their fields. Under your system my technique might slowly defuse to them eventually.
Suppose I have an idea for how to improve yield but it needs an upfront investment that I can’t afford (like say buying a tractor), under the current system I can use my land as collateral to get a load from the bank. Under your system that’s impossible. Incidentally, I’ve heard the argument that this problem (namely lack of completely secure property titles) is the main reason the third world stays poor.
This is one of the good arguments. This was the problem with guilds. It was a good solution to how to have an entrepreneurial market without much inequality, sort of the best of both worlds. The trick is that price floors ensured that competition will largely happen in artisanal handwork quality, and that sort of competition is very good at producing the kind of setup where there are a lot of small vendors, not a few big ones, and thus not much inequality. A price floor for beer would kill Heineken and benefit the micros with their artisanal banana chocolate chili gummybears ales.
However, technological innovation usually means cheaper production, not artisanal quality. Thus guild price floors prevented that from happening. While a cheaper, more automated production method was still useful, because it leads to higher margins, it did not allow one to undercut competition and put them out of business and that reduced its speed.
I think the guild idea could still be salvaged. The trick is to have multiple competing guilds, and price floors only inside guilds, not between them, and inside the guild innovations are licenced to other members for a fee. The guild on the whole uses them to undercut the competition, and the innovators get paid by other guild members profits. That could work.
It was a good solution to how to have an entrepreneurial market without much inequality, sort of the best of both worlds.
Why is inequality ipso facto a problem?
I think the guild idea could still be salvaged. The trick is to have multiple competing guilds, and price floors only inside guilds, not between them, and inside the guild innovations are licenced to other members for a fee. The guild on the whole uses them to undercut the competition, and the innovators get paid by other guild members profits. That could work.
You still have the problem of idea spreading between guilds (or replacing unsuccessful guilds with successful ones). A corporation with a successful product expands and hires more employees. A guild can’t expand without diluting the voting power of existing members.
Because money is power. And that wouldn’t be a problem in itself. The real problem is that money does not look like power. For example, in a feudal system, where power is obvious, the rights and duties of lords and servants are clearly defined and the lords generally understand they have responsibility. That is not too bad. In a system where there is formally equality, yet money is still power, none of this is there, nobody defines the duties of the rich, this kind of power does not come with a clear sense of responsibility and so on.
Money works as power in multiple ways. Influencing politics is an obvious one, and although one good argument would be that politicians should not have too much power to sell to begin with, it is a moot one—since reducing government is in itself a political act, you can bet your ass that every time it gets reduced, it gets reduced in a way that it serves the interests of influential people. So true limited government you could only have through frequent revolutions, not by simply arguing and voting so that politics should limit itself—it will never happen in a way that is truly fair, it can only happen as a farce to serve vested interests.
Money is also power in different ways, and this is why I now consider the libertarian economics textbooks I tended to worship when I was 25 (Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State etc.) way, way too naive. It is easy to see market exchange as an equitable transaction that makes both sides better off. But in reality often one party has the power. Adam Smith already saw it, when he wrote that a typical employee will need money right now, the typical employer can easily wait a month or two to employ a new worker, and thus the employer has the power in the bargain. The transaction itself still makes both parties better off, of course, the problem is not with the transaction, the problem is with the structural situation before the transaction. The problem is not that people exchange work for money, the problem is that most people own fuck all in the way of productive resources so they cannot possibly live any other way just others giving them a job. As a generalization, the market of consumer goods is equitable enough. The two huge exceptions are jobs and housing. Let a man have a fully paid house and a small business and he will feel free and equal enough, and consider all market exchanges fair and equal and mutually beneficial, but people who need a job to live and need to rent a flat from a landlord will never feel free. They feel like the employer and the landlord has power over them. This is why they pretty much never become libertarians. Libertarians are largely recruited from the self-employed and the home-owners. Any man who comes home from a job where the boss threatens him to fire if he does not work faster, and at home the landlords yells I did not allow you to keep a dog here, will not feel free, and will not think the government is the primary reason he does not feel free. If anything, he wants the government to balance out the transaction. So this is also how money is power.
I had enough libertarian sensibilities left in me to not simply jump from here to saying let’s just throw a lot of government on the problem and that will surely solve it. Rather, I would prefer to reduce the demand for government by trying to have the kind of structures that lead to broadly equitable market outcomes. Clearly, a self-employed, family business market is more suitable for that than huge corporations. However there are significant issues with the implementation. The dilution of voting power is a real one, for example. As of now, I was unable to figure out a fully functional solution. I just know that if you want to reduce the demand for government, you basically need to live the “frontier life”: nobody is a home renter and almost everybody is self-employed.
No, it’s not. Money can be used to purchase power, if you know what your doing and have the right connections. But it itself isn’t really power. That’s why throughout history those with money frequently find themselves on the receiving end of power, at best they must pay off those with power, at worst they get killed, e.g., the Jews in Nazi Germany, the bourgeois and “kulaks” in Soviet Russia.
There is one thought experiment I created a while ago to illustrate the problem. Imagine that Stalin gets enlightened in 1948 and introduces capitalism and a free market. There is one caveat: he owns everything the state or local councils used to own: all the businesses, the farmlands, the apartment houses, the roads and so on. Everybody works for him, there are no other employers. Most urban people live in apartments he owns. People are free to start new businesses, or build houses, but he does not intend to make competing with him easy, there will be outrageous tolls for using the roads and so on, and if a startup still somehow survives making sure to use his weight to suffocate competitors at their infancy, such as by undercutting them at all and any costs—he can bear some loses with an immense wealth like that. Would you say he still has immense economic power? If yes, this illustrates why the distribution of property matters, and a shorter form to express it is to say money is power. It is important to understand here that it does not simply means cash: owning productive property is far more important. Money is just used as the short form of this.
The issue is that a lot of libertarians grew up in a place like Colorado where the distribution of property is very decent, because it is a post-frontier type distribution, which is actually quite close to the homesteading principle. And that is excellent, but property does not automatically distribute itself so in all possible societies. Being used to these types of fair distributions, it may be hard to see why property or money could be power. But in other types of distributions it can be. This is why it would be important to try to move all societies towards a post-frontier type of setup: many, many independent small businesses, self-employed people and homeowners, not masses of employees and renters. This is not a new idea. Have you heard of Ted Roosevelts Frontier Thesis?
Look. It’s very simple. Imagine an island where all the farmland is owned by one guy. Owning it means the right to exclude other people from using it. This right comes from the government, money/property is power because the government protects property rights. This is an insight that you seem to have missed. It is borrowing the power of the government. For example, if some people would try to harvest on his farmland, he could call the police to arrest them. This is how property is power, that the government lends power to help property owners exclude others from their property. So what can the people do? Work for him, on his terms, by his rules. Thus, the power lent by the government to property owners means they can act similar to a government on the property they claim. Every piece of land owned is a monarchy, and guaranteed by the government to be so.
This is obviously a form of power. I don’t see any ways how it could not be. If you can tell people all this around here is mine and you do what I say or GTFO, that is power. The only way it could be not power is if people can easily GTFO and homestead some new property for themselves. And that is called living on the frontier. This is why frontiers are awesome and post-frontier societies are quite fair. But not all societies are post-frontier and should be made so, that is precisely my point. If the power of property could be defanged by making it easy to GTFO and set up shop elsewhere, that would be precisely what I want to do. Look, bullshit like Marxism got popular because the blue collar folks of the UK, Europe, Russia saw zero chance to GTFO and set up shop elsewhere, they felt they are condemned to the life of an employee for ever and ever (and that was called class consciousness). This is why this matters. Non-frontier setups where property is power make a lot of people accept any bullshit ideology to save themselves from that kind of power.
As for your examples, obviously a gun trumps a purse, but the whole point is that they were particularly violent periods of history. Liberal democracy tries to take violence out of human relationships, this is why the second most powerful thing after the gun: the purse tends to be so important there. People are not allowed to beat up political activists (the nazis did that too, for example) but they can try to buy them off etc.
Also, counter-examples. Julius Caesar got an immense amount of gold through violence, then used it buy himself into the top of politics. While it is true that the root of it was violence/war, still gold was immensely useful at bribing magistrates, entertaining the voters with gladiators, financing public works privately and generally buying popularity. Romans understood perfectly that nothing trumps violence, this is why they tried to keep legions to the north of the Rubicon. And yes, there was a civil war. But plain simply killing or threatening enough is not enough to secure rule. Caesar understood he must also buy people off. Most importantly, ensuring the support of soldiers by giving them gold. A second good example would be the use of various Italian and Swiss mercenaries.
There is one thought experiment I created a while ago to illustrate the problem. Imagine that Stalin gets enlightened in 1948 and introduces capitalism and a free market. There is one caveat: he owns everything the state or local councils used to own: all the businesses, the farmlands, the apartment houses, the roads and so on. Everybody works for him, there are no other employers. Most urban people live in apartments he owns. People are free to start new businesses, or build houses, but he does not intend to make competing with him easy, there will be outrageous tolls for using the roads and so on, and if a startup still somehow survives making sure to use his weight to suffocate competitors at their infancy, such as by undercutting them at all and any costs—he can bear some loses with an immense wealth like that. Would you say he still has immense economic power? If yes, this illustrates why the distribution of property matters, and a shorter form to express it is to say money is power. It is important to understand here that it does not simply means cash: owning productive property is far more important. Money is just used as the short form of this.
His main power would not come from money, it would come from the people having been trained that questioning Stalin leads to death camps.
This is obviously a form of power. I don’t see any ways how it could not be. If you can tell people all this around here is mine and you do what I say or GTFO, that is power. The only way it could be not power is if people can easily GTFO and homestead some new property for themselves.
Or if they ignore you, or kill you.
As for your examples, obviously a gun trumps a purse, but the whole point is that they were particularly violent periods of history. Liberal democracy tries to take violence out of human relationships, this is why the second most powerful thing after the gun: the purse tends to be so important there.
No, the second most important thing after a gun is connections. Now obviously money can buy both if you know what you doing and can ensure that the people you bought stay bought. However, that makes money less important then both.
Julius Caesar got an immense amount of gold through violence, then used it buy himself into the top of politics. While it is true that the root of it was violence/war, still gold was immensely useful at bribing magistrates, entertaining the voters with gladiators, financing public works privately and generally buying popularity. Romans understood perfectly that nothing trumps violence, this is why they tried to keep legions to the north of the Rubicon. And yes, there was a civil war. But plain simply killing or threatening enough is not enough to secure rule. Caesar understood he must also buy people off. Most importantly, ensuring the support of soldiers by giving them gold.
The most important sources of Caesar’s power were violence and the popularity he acquired, due to being good at said violence. Compare him with Crassus who made even more money without using (as much) violence.
A second good example would be the use of various Italian and Swiss mercenaries.
I believe Machiavelli had some rather pointed things to say about how much power using mercenaries actually gave you.
I am afraid this way it would be an endless argument, so I try a different angle. Do you believe that “Power resides where men believe it resides; it’s a trick, a shadow on the wall, and a very small man can cast a very large shadow.” ?
If yes, well, you cannot deny that people feel their employers or landlords have power over them: and this feeling is power itself, because it makes them behave so.
Power is a relationship. You have power over me if I find it in my interest to grant it to you. This could be a financial interest, a desire to avoid physical harm, or anything else. What’s granted can be revoked. If I no longer fear your ability to inflict harm or if I decide I don’t want your money, your power over me ceases to exist. Power resides where men believe it resides, because they put it there.
With that said, there are, as observed, a number of methods of reliably gaining power over individuals. Money and force will work on most people in the short term.
Power is a relationship. You have power over me if I find it in my interest to grant it to you
That’s sophistry—it’s easy to adjust your interests. Power still grows out of the barrel of a gun. Yes, you can be a martyr and get shot, but the great majority of people do what powers-that-be tell them.
Force comes from the barrel of a gun. It may or may not lead to actual power. There are countless historical examples where use of force simply served to fan the flames of resistance or where brutal persecutions only strengthened the cause.
People generally listen to the powers-that-be because said powers still look after their interests to an extent. People might not like the local tyrant. They may yearn for a better government. They are also keenly aware of how things can get worse. If the Emperor is tough on crime, leaves you alone if you follow the rules, and makes the trains run on time, that’s probably better than a bloody civil war or domination by criminal gangs.
If I willingly submit to force, it’s because I expect better treatment than I’d get by resisting.
I understand what you are saying, it’s just that I don’t think it’s a useful framework for analysis.
There are a bunch of issues with what we mean by “power”, so let’s define the thing. Actually, let me offer three definition in a descending order of generality.
(1) Power is the ability to achieve your goals, make things happen, actually do stuff. If you’re Superman you have the power to fly.
(2) Power is the ability to make other people do what you want. If you’re Elon Musk, you have the power to build spacecraft.
(3) Power is the ability to make other people do what you want through negative incentives (basically, threats). If you’re a cop, you have the power to arrest people.
Going back to DVH’s point, neither of these is “a trick, a shadow on the wall”.
Anyone can testify anything, but I don’t see how “having been a landlord” gives you any particular authority to say whether tenants commonly feel that landlords have power over them. (You might be able to say that your tenants didn’t obviously-to-you feel that. If you knew them closely enough to be sure of being right, then that itself makes you a very non-typical landlord.)
I would not want to claim that anything nontrivial is true of all tenants or of all landlords. But the tenants I know who have said much to me about their experience of tenancy do in fact appear to feel that their landlords have power over them—but there’s a selection effect here: you’re more likely to be talking to other people about your relations with your landlord if something’s gone wrong somehow.
This would greatly slow technological progress.
Suppose I come up with a way to double yield. Under the current system, I can use the extra money I make to buy out my neighbors and hire people to apply the same technique on their fields. Under your system my technique might slowly defuse to them eventually.
Suppose I have an idea for how to improve yield but it needs an upfront investment that I can’t afford (like say buying a tractor), under the current system I can use my land as collateral to get a load from the bank. Under your system that’s impossible. Incidentally, I’ve heard the argument that this problem (namely lack of completely secure property titles) is the main reason the third world stays poor.
This is one of the good arguments. This was the problem with guilds. It was a good solution to how to have an entrepreneurial market without much inequality, sort of the best of both worlds. The trick is that price floors ensured that competition will largely happen in artisanal handwork quality, and that sort of competition is very good at producing the kind of setup where there are a lot of small vendors, not a few big ones, and thus not much inequality. A price floor for beer would kill Heineken and benefit the micros with their artisanal banana chocolate chili gummybears ales.
However, technological innovation usually means cheaper production, not artisanal quality. Thus guild price floors prevented that from happening. While a cheaper, more automated production method was still useful, because it leads to higher margins, it did not allow one to undercut competition and put them out of business and that reduced its speed.
I think the guild idea could still be salvaged. The trick is to have multiple competing guilds, and price floors only inside guilds, not between them, and inside the guild innovations are licenced to other members for a fee. The guild on the whole uses them to undercut the competition, and the innovators get paid by other guild members profits. That could work.
Why is inequality ipso facto a problem?
You still have the problem of idea spreading between guilds (or replacing unsuccessful guilds with successful ones). A corporation with a successful product expands and hires more employees. A guild can’t expand without diluting the voting power of existing members.
Because money is power. And that wouldn’t be a problem in itself. The real problem is that money does not look like power. For example, in a feudal system, where power is obvious, the rights and duties of lords and servants are clearly defined and the lords generally understand they have responsibility. That is not too bad. In a system where there is formally equality, yet money is still power, none of this is there, nobody defines the duties of the rich, this kind of power does not come with a clear sense of responsibility and so on.
Money works as power in multiple ways. Influencing politics is an obvious one, and although one good argument would be that politicians should not have too much power to sell to begin with, it is a moot one—since reducing government is in itself a political act, you can bet your ass that every time it gets reduced, it gets reduced in a way that it serves the interests of influential people. So true limited government you could only have through frequent revolutions, not by simply arguing and voting so that politics should limit itself—it will never happen in a way that is truly fair, it can only happen as a farce to serve vested interests.
Money is also power in different ways, and this is why I now consider the libertarian economics textbooks I tended to worship when I was 25 (Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State etc.) way, way too naive. It is easy to see market exchange as an equitable transaction that makes both sides better off. But in reality often one party has the power. Adam Smith already saw it, when he wrote that a typical employee will need money right now, the typical employer can easily wait a month or two to employ a new worker, and thus the employer has the power in the bargain. The transaction itself still makes both parties better off, of course, the problem is not with the transaction, the problem is with the structural situation before the transaction. The problem is not that people exchange work for money, the problem is that most people own fuck all in the way of productive resources so they cannot possibly live any other way just others giving them a job. As a generalization, the market of consumer goods is equitable enough. The two huge exceptions are jobs and housing. Let a man have a fully paid house and a small business and he will feel free and equal enough, and consider all market exchanges fair and equal and mutually beneficial, but people who need a job to live and need to rent a flat from a landlord will never feel free. They feel like the employer and the landlord has power over them. This is why they pretty much never become libertarians. Libertarians are largely recruited from the self-employed and the home-owners. Any man who comes home from a job where the boss threatens him to fire if he does not work faster, and at home the landlords yells I did not allow you to keep a dog here, will not feel free, and will not think the government is the primary reason he does not feel free. If anything, he wants the government to balance out the transaction. So this is also how money is power.
I had enough libertarian sensibilities left in me to not simply jump from here to saying let’s just throw a lot of government on the problem and that will surely solve it. Rather, I would prefer to reduce the demand for government by trying to have the kind of structures that lead to broadly equitable market outcomes. Clearly, a self-employed, family business market is more suitable for that than huge corporations. However there are significant issues with the implementation. The dilution of voting power is a real one, for example. As of now, I was unable to figure out a fully functional solution. I just know that if you want to reduce the demand for government, you basically need to live the “frontier life”: nobody is a home renter and almost everybody is self-employed.
No, it’s not. Money can be used to purchase power, if you know what your doing and have the right connections. But it itself isn’t really power. That’s why throughout history those with money frequently find themselves on the receiving end of power, at best they must pay off those with power, at worst they get killed, e.g., the Jews in Nazi Germany, the bourgeois and “kulaks” in Soviet Russia.
There is one thought experiment I created a while ago to illustrate the problem. Imagine that Stalin gets enlightened in 1948 and introduces capitalism and a free market. There is one caveat: he owns everything the state or local councils used to own: all the businesses, the farmlands, the apartment houses, the roads and so on. Everybody works for him, there are no other employers. Most urban people live in apartments he owns. People are free to start new businesses, or build houses, but he does not intend to make competing with him easy, there will be outrageous tolls for using the roads and so on, and if a startup still somehow survives making sure to use his weight to suffocate competitors at their infancy, such as by undercutting them at all and any costs—he can bear some loses with an immense wealth like that. Would you say he still has immense economic power? If yes, this illustrates why the distribution of property matters, and a shorter form to express it is to say money is power. It is important to understand here that it does not simply means cash: owning productive property is far more important. Money is just used as the short form of this.
The issue is that a lot of libertarians grew up in a place like Colorado where the distribution of property is very decent, because it is a post-frontier type distribution, which is actually quite close to the homesteading principle. And that is excellent, but property does not automatically distribute itself so in all possible societies. Being used to these types of fair distributions, it may be hard to see why property or money could be power. But in other types of distributions it can be. This is why it would be important to try to move all societies towards a post-frontier type of setup: many, many independent small businesses, self-employed people and homeowners, not masses of employees and renters. This is not a new idea. Have you heard of Ted Roosevelts Frontier Thesis?
Look. It’s very simple. Imagine an island where all the farmland is owned by one guy. Owning it means the right to exclude other people from using it. This right comes from the government, money/property is power because the government protects property rights. This is an insight that you seem to have missed. It is borrowing the power of the government. For example, if some people would try to harvest on his farmland, he could call the police to arrest them. This is how property is power, that the government lends power to help property owners exclude others from their property. So what can the people do? Work for him, on his terms, by his rules. Thus, the power lent by the government to property owners means they can act similar to a government on the property they claim. Every piece of land owned is a monarchy, and guaranteed by the government to be so.
This is obviously a form of power. I don’t see any ways how it could not be. If you can tell people all this around here is mine and you do what I say or GTFO, that is power. The only way it could be not power is if people can easily GTFO and homestead some new property for themselves. And that is called living on the frontier. This is why frontiers are awesome and post-frontier societies are quite fair. But not all societies are post-frontier and should be made so, that is precisely my point. If the power of property could be defanged by making it easy to GTFO and set up shop elsewhere, that would be precisely what I want to do. Look, bullshit like Marxism got popular because the blue collar folks of the UK, Europe, Russia saw zero chance to GTFO and set up shop elsewhere, they felt they are condemned to the life of an employee for ever and ever (and that was called class consciousness). This is why this matters. Non-frontier setups where property is power make a lot of people accept any bullshit ideology to save themselves from that kind of power.
As for your examples, obviously a gun trumps a purse, but the whole point is that they were particularly violent periods of history. Liberal democracy tries to take violence out of human relationships, this is why the second most powerful thing after the gun: the purse tends to be so important there. People are not allowed to beat up political activists (the nazis did that too, for example) but they can try to buy them off etc.
Also, counter-examples. Julius Caesar got an immense amount of gold through violence, then used it buy himself into the top of politics. While it is true that the root of it was violence/war, still gold was immensely useful at bribing magistrates, entertaining the voters with gladiators, financing public works privately and generally buying popularity. Romans understood perfectly that nothing trumps violence, this is why they tried to keep legions to the north of the Rubicon. And yes, there was a civil war. But plain simply killing or threatening enough is not enough to secure rule. Caesar understood he must also buy people off. Most importantly, ensuring the support of soldiers by giving them gold. A second good example would be the use of various Italian and Swiss mercenaries.
His main power would not come from money, it would come from the people having been trained that questioning Stalin leads to death camps.
Or if they ignore you, or kill you.
No, the second most important thing after a gun is connections. Now obviously money can buy both if you know what you doing and can ensure that the people you bought stay bought. However, that makes money less important then both.
The most important sources of Caesar’s power were violence and the popularity he acquired, due to being good at said violence. Compare him with Crassus who made even more money without using (as much) violence.
I believe Machiavelli had some rather pointed things to say about how much power using mercenaries actually gave you.
I am afraid this way it would be an endless argument, so I try a different angle. Do you believe that “Power resides where men believe it resides; it’s a trick, a shadow on the wall, and a very small man can cast a very large shadow.” ?
If yes, well, you cannot deny that people feel their employers or landlords have power over them: and this feeling is power itself, because it makes them behave so.
Power is a relationship. You have power over me if I find it in my interest to grant it to you. This could be a financial interest, a desire to avoid physical harm, or anything else. What’s granted can be revoked. If I no longer fear your ability to inflict harm or if I decide I don’t want your money, your power over me ceases to exist. Power resides where men believe it resides, because they put it there.
With that said, there are, as observed, a number of methods of reliably gaining power over individuals. Money and force will work on most people in the short term.
That’s sophistry—it’s easy to adjust your interests. Power still grows out of the barrel of a gun. Yes, you can be a martyr and get shot, but the great majority of people do what powers-that-be tell them.
Force comes from the barrel of a gun. It may or may not lead to actual power. There are countless historical examples where use of force simply served to fan the flames of resistance or where brutal persecutions only strengthened the cause.
People generally listen to the powers-that-be because said powers still look after their interests to an extent. People might not like the local tyrant. They may yearn for a better government. They are also keenly aware of how things can get worse. If the Emperor is tough on crime, leaves you alone if you follow the rules, and makes the trains run on time, that’s probably better than a bloody civil war or domination by criminal gangs.
If I willingly submit to force, it’s because I expect better treatment than I’d get by resisting.
I understand what you are saying, it’s just that I don’t think it’s a useful framework for analysis.
There are a bunch of issues with what we mean by “power”, so let’s define the thing. Actually, let me offer three definition in a descending order of generality.
(1) Power is the ability to achieve your goals, make things happen, actually do stuff. If you’re Superman you have the power to fly.
(2) Power is the ability to make other people do what you want. If you’re Elon Musk, you have the power to build spacecraft.
(3) Power is the ability to make other people do what you want through negative incentives (basically, threats). If you’re a cop, you have the power to arrest people.
Going back to DVH’s point, neither of these is “a trick, a shadow on the wall”.
Having been a landlord, I can testify that this is not in fact the case.
Anyone can testify anything, but I don’t see how “having been a landlord” gives you any particular authority to say whether tenants commonly feel that landlords have power over them. (You might be able to say that your tenants didn’t obviously-to-you feel that. If you knew them closely enough to be sure of being right, then that itself makes you a very non-typical landlord.)
I would not want to claim that anything nontrivial is true of all tenants or of all landlords. But the tenants I know who have said much to me about their experience of tenancy do in fact appear to feel that their landlords have power over them—but there’s a selection effect here: you’re more likely to be talking to other people about your relations with your landlord if something’s gone wrong somehow.
You mean they easily disregarded your rules and things like that?
Yes, rules like that they have to actually pay the rent with checks that don’t bounce.
A form of power being abrogated under certain circumstances doesn’t automatically make it not a form of power.