Right, neither kills the host as it would leave a virus (e.g.) just as dead. Seems to me they both apply, though I'd give the widely informed parasitism of the King a slight edge. There wasn't much question of what anyone was doing, then. Now, that's not clear at all.
Okay, that too seems much clearer with the King. At least then there were the titles and the land ownership was pretty clear. Today, not so much. Funny that any way you cut it, the King seems better than the Steward.
Once they choose it but not before, so you find out too late. Besides, how many wouldn't choose it? A vanishing minority for now, maybe that'll change.
“He has an incentive to consume now.”
A lot of consumption going on these says.
I can’t remember basic biology right now, but symbiosis and parasitism come to mind.
Which one kills the host?
Symbiosis is the one that applies here. Can't live off of a dead host.
Right, neither kills the host as it would leave a virus (e.g.) just as dead. Seems to me they both apply, though I'd give the widely informed parasitism of the King a slight edge. There wasn't much question of what anyone was doing, then. Now, that's not clear at all.
...or WHO was doing what
Okay, that too seems much clearer with the King. At least then there were the titles and the land ownership was pretty clear. Today, not so much. Funny that any way you cut it, the King seems better than the Steward.
The Steward can be anyone. At least we find out real quick who is devoid of scruples in a stewardship State.
Once they choose it but not before, so you find out too late. Besides, how many wouldn't choose it? A vanishing minority for now, maybe that'll change.