1
   

Status quo: Is it natural or is it plastic?

 
 
coberst
 
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2007 08:09 am
Status quo: Is it natural or is it plastic?

National governments in the West have advanced from Monarchies to Republics. Societies have moved from rule by a monarchy aided by the aristocracy, to rule by a plutocracy subject only to ratification by the citizens of the republic.

It seems that, like the poor, we constantly have with us a privileged class. Is it possible to organize a well functioning democracy that does not support a privileged class?

Let me give you my definition of privileged class.

Fifteen years ago there was a humorous saying about George Bush the elder, which went something like this, "George Bush was born on third base and thought he had hit a triple". My definition of a privileged individual is one who was born on "third base".

Evidently many assume that the privileged classes are those who have higher IQs or some kind of natural endowment. I do not consider this to be privilege. The privileged are those who, by birth, are endowed with great wealth thereby being placed into a position of power and prestige without any meritorious effort on their part.

Can a democratic society function effectively if no individuals are allowed to inherit great wealth?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 525 • Replies: 2
No top replies

 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2007 04:40 pm
Not anymore-now that everybody thinks he or she is entitled to be special regardless of merit or effort.

In pre-Christian times when you had Patricians, Equestrians, and Plebeians it seems there was a sense of running things because one could-like a Patrician managing a road or an Equestrian joining the military. Of course there were those who sat on their asses and inherited, but the element of functionality in the titles limited their abuse. Then you get Royals, Nobles, Knights, Commoners, and the masterless class and it becomes more of a card you carry in your wallet to get better treatment than a walk of life. Then you've got America, a race anyone can win, but in which some start ahead of others-and there's neither duty nor class involved, just kids getting cars at as 16th birthday presents that I could work my whole life and not be able to get on the waiting list for. People accumulate tens of millions and pass it on instead of acting like there's more to life than material success and using it to shape the world. Now it's like, they leave us with nothing to strike out against, nothing to win, and not enough grit know what to do without them. The world is turning into an ant colony.

Functionality is the key to having self-sustaining egalitarianism but everyone's so afraid of failure that we're not allowed to live by our claws anymore. Pull your head out of the sand and your in a new tax bracket and paying half you're capital gains. Live you're own way and you're treated with suspicion. There needs to be something to take for oneself again.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2007 02:26 am
Just off the top of my head I would say that no more than one million dollars could be inherited by one child. I think that if a child inherits more than that they would be unlikely to become a self-actualizing productive member of the community.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Status quo: Is it natural or is it plastic?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/12/2024 at 02:26:35