I have no idea how the people that act as middle (wo)men in renting (or letting for some of us) flats are called, hence the subject. I do know however that the one in charge of my flat is one I really don't like and am bound to get into more trouble with soon enough (unless I earn sufficient money in the month to come). Lets call her the landlady even though that's not really what she is.
There's an advantage to living in a free country: you're protected against the abuses of such people, and unless you do something truly wrong you cannot be kicked out of your flat. My main way of dealing with her attempts to bully me is to act as if I were slightly mad. And knowing that 1) there are chances that I won't be able to pay my rent on time next month (I'm crossing my fingers it won't be the case though), and 2) that she was coming with the plumber to check that it was indeed her responsibility to pay for the repairs, I just had to make my place look scary enough to a conventional and conservative mind as hers. Not evil, just slightly outside what she can deal with.
So I proceeded to prepare my flat for her visit. How exactly I set it up is hard to describe, there was a lot of pushing objects in the exact right place to make them look wrong without them being "wrong" enough to be objectionable. A list wouldn't do it justice, as you can guess: books, books everywhere, mostly poetry mixed with O'Reilly stuff, half of them open; some rope on the bed with just enough of a few knots to suggest bondage but not enough to clarify it; political literature all over, mixed with business contracts, and other such things.
In other words, I'm not quite sure how I could describe the setting but I know for sure that it had its effect. I'm pretty sure that next time I'm late for my rent, I'll have two extra weeks before she musters the courage to call me.
hmmmm, maybe I'm becoming just about evil enough to enter politics....
hmmmm, maybe I'm becoming just about evil enough to enter politics....
Piffle.
The foul misuse of Feng Shui might daze the local rent collectors (if not, it at least gets points for creativity) but fiendishly pushing the ottoman into the hallway is a far cry from holding a warm smile and steady gaze while gesturing to an assistant to have the guy garroted after his accounts are cleared out.
Sorry...
-ubu
Re:Free?
darobin on 2002-05-21T11:01:28
Well, no, that would put my safety at risk, and thus go against freedom. I did mean free, not wild!
Re:Free?
pudge on 2002-05-21T11:54:03
But... you're restricting the freedom of others! Fascist! (Hey, if you can call me postmodern, I can call you fascist. ;-) Re:Free?
darobin on 2002-05-21T12:32:38
No I'm not... a place to live in is a fundamental right, which is logically placed above the right to property. Besides, they are middle-men that pay the real owner even when I'm late, and are insured against people like me that go through a few hard months. The definition of freedom that all kids learn by heart in primary schools here is (roughly) "one's freedom extends to the point where someone else's freedom starts". I always thought that that left a lot of room for floating boundaries and interpretation.
That being said, it's far from the first time that I'm called a fascist, if only for my definition of fascism which is probably somewhat post-modernistic
;-) I guess I should make a few "free country" provocations less... Re:Free?
pudge on 2002-05-21T13:00:11
Eh, I'm just screwing around... I certainly didn't mean that you are a fascist, and I don't support a system that allows what I noted is "truly free."
It was a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States who said, "the right to throw your fist ends where my nose begins." However, I maintain that while this philosophy is a good one, and I share it*, that it is not representative of true freedom, but rather of the limits we must place on freedom in order to protect those fundamental rights and establish justice. I don't think that the right to not be punched in the nose is "liberty" or "freedom." It's the right to security, not the right to liberty. Freedom itself is just one right we have -- the most important one, IMO -- and it is measured against other rights, such as the right of other people to be secure.
As it says in the Declaration of Independence, we have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Various "rights" (including the right to liberty itself) do not equate to "liberty," but often are asserted in spite of liberty, though not at the expense of it, since we can only ensure liberty by limiting it in some ways, most notably those ways in which we might abridge the liberty of others.
In other words, you've apparently been treating rights and freedom as the same thing, and I disagree.
*As a side note, I don't think this does leave room for much interpretation or floating boundary. Sure, you can have people make claims like "when you say abortion is murder it goes against my right to pursue happiness," but most of us know intuitively that such claims are nonsense. It's much like the anti-obscenity laws, where people claim that it could leave people wide open to unfair treatment, but few practical examples may be found. However, I get the feeling that you think a lot of room for intepretation is a good thing; perhaps you don't, but I certainly don't.:-)
Re:Free?
darobin on 2002-05-21T13:48:14
A few notes in a free form way (I've got a terrible headache preventing me from putting two concepts properly one after the other):
I get the feeling that you think a lot of room for intepretation is a good thing; perhaps you don't, but I certainly don't.
Certainly not. The law should be legislative, not jurisprudential. Otherwise you end up with decisions taken by judges that should have been taken by the elected representants of the people. The law ought to leave no room for interpretation.
However I do think that the initial sentence leaves much space (that's why there are other laws
;). Take this simple example: I live in someone else's flat, which I rent. If one month I do not pay this rent, how is the matter settled? Either I keep occupying the flat without paying and thus restrict the liberty of the owner by depriving her of her property, or I'm kicked out, which restricts my liberty by depriving me of a place to live in. Which is more important in this case is not given in that sentence, yet required to legiferate. Many countries differ in their choices on such matters, which would tend to point me to the fact that there is room for interpretation. Otherwise you'd be living in a perfect system such as for example that of France (j/k ;). you've apparently been treating rights and freedom as the same thing
Nope, at least not so simply, not in an equating manner. What I do consider is that there are prerequisistes to freedom, ie that it is not a given. That is, it is different from free will. Such prerequisites include (but are not limited to) health, education, a place to live, idle time to think, etc.
If I lived under the constant threat that someone might kick me out of my flat at his or her whim's content, I would not consider myself free. I would in a way and to a degree be enslaved to that person. That's why there's a law that states clearly that I have three months to pay rent before they are allowed to start bothering me, and that they cannot throw me out before eighteen months of procedure or in winter. It ensures that no one has freedom-depriving power over me.
Re:Free?
pudge on 2002-05-21T14:04:49
I think your simple example is wrongly put into the context of dueling liberties, but rather has to do with dueling rights. You have a right -- not a liberty -- to have a place to live. You have the liberty to live where you wish (according to your means), but the right to have a place to live at all. I do think you are conflating the two.
And no, you would not be "free" if we say only that he could kick you out at his whim, but if we are going to go that far and say that people can act as the please regardless of others' rights, then we must also say that you could refuse to leave, beat him up, and even steal his building from him so that now you are the owner. It's a bit Hobbesian, but it is true freedom, whether you would "feel" free or not.
