A coalition of the Green party and two others currently governs the country. The two bigger of those, Green party being one of them, lost a lot of votes, the small one (that’s arguably the biggest issue for governing and publicity) didn’t.

The green party had a huge success and increase in voters three years ago. But the way it went, the public communication and issues between the three parties, the inflation, and other energy cost increases presumably lead to voters now choosing to vote against them.

The central-right that governed for many years before received most votes. The far right, under institutional observation because of its danger to the constition/opposition to the constitution, had a big increase in voters too. Especially in the eastern states (previously eastern Germany) - traditionally more right-leaning.

Dunno about Germany. It had a big move to the right. The second strongest party is now right, passing two other traditional established parties.

If a human right only exists on paper it’s not a right

A right is a right. It doesn’t just disappear.

Isn’t this the world right now? Even you rent your landlord owns the house you rent.

It’s the opposite. I asked whether they were saying there should not be any renting, only owning.

How do you call an individual that rents you a place then?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/landlord

A person that leases real property; a lessor.

I really don’t see the distinction. And while I’m not a native speaker, I’ve never heard nor think this is a common distinction or understanding.

Landlord is singular. It does not sound like a company or manager.

That’s a good goal, but leaves open how it can be implemented.

Is every landlord the same? Are they all big companies out for profit? Or what?

You gotta separate the concept of a right from fulfilling them.

You can have a human right. But that alone does not answer how it is fulfilled.

The right is not owned. It can’t be.

Are you saying there should only be owning housing? What do the people that can’t afford a house or flat do? Is it entirely the states job to build housing then and give housing away?

But at the point where you actually become a good landlord, it’s more of a public service than something you actually make money on.

Why is that a but? They’re still a landlord, right? I really don’t get the attempt of separation of the same thing.

I’m confused. Are you saying people shouldn’t have to pay for housing? For food? For electricity?

They’re providing/enabling the human right. Why do you describe it as if they were making money off of necessity without trade and giving?