| BookTalk.org News |
| Have you ordered your copy of our next books? |
| Donate to BookTalk.org |
Please support BookTalk.org by making a small donation today!
•
Who supports us?
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
coberst
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 21
Gender: 
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:27 am Post subject: Status quo: Is it natural or is it plastic?
|
 |
|
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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
irishrose 
Freshman
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 215
Gender: 
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:56 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| coberst wrote: |
| Can a democratic society function effectively if no individuals are allowed to inherit great wealth? |
Well, a democracy is a system of government, so could it operate effectively if people were prevented from inheriting wealth? I guess a democracy could elect to give up individual control of wealth to some other party. But the real punch of your question is whether some unnamed economic system can function if it is ordered to the extent that it prevents people from inheriting wealth. And, I think, thus far, we’ve seen that it can’t.
Also I think it's important to note that power, or political influence, and wealth are not necessarily synonymous. The Bushes don't exist as an example of a sort of plutocracy merely because of their wealth. Though I think it's easy enough to concede that it wouldn't be possible without their wealth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coberst
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 21
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:02 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Just off the top of my head I would say that no more than one million dollars should 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.
“In a society as it actually existed in 1787, the privileged few were already in a position to size the first jobs in the judiciary. Since justices were the only officers with life tenure, and since the framers had carefully arranged for “judicial control” over legislation, they could have things their way for all the foreseeable future.
Even if the judiciary should some day come into different hands, so that active protection of the privilege was no longer possible, the system of checks would serve the propertied class…In a society “where the field of private property is already extended to cover practically every form of tangible and intangible wealth”, a deadlocked government serves owner’s interest almost as well as one rigged in their favor. Government continues to help them just by doing nothing.” page XV
Quote from “Explaining America”—Garry Wills
Political power is not always associated with wealth. It happens only about 96% of the time in the United States. I am sure one can find mayors of small towns who are not associated with money. This may be a slight exageration. Always keep in mind that 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
irishrose
Freshman
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 215
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:48 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| coberst wrote: |
| Just off the top of my head… |
And that’s kind of my point. If you are going to have any real chance of winning popular support for this type of economic structure, as a functioning democracy would require, I imagine you would need to have a clearly defined and organized system. And you’d probably also need to demonstrate, in a very definite way, the necessity of such an economic system. Though I imagine that's secondary to creating a functioning proposal that clearly demonstrates, in very particular detail, how such an economic system can support itself.
| Quote: |
| Political power is not always associated with wealth. It happens only about 96% of the time in the United States. I am sure one can find mayors of small towns who are not associated with money. |
I think you might have missed the point I made there, or perhaps I didn't make it clear. Though wealth is necessary for the kind of political power to which you allude, wealth is not the only functioning element of that power. Just look at Perot, as an easy example, and I’m not just talking about his failed bids at the presidency. His political influence deteriorated when his politics took a certain turn, and at the same time that the country’s political climate took another turn. Eliminating the Bushes wealth, if innordinate wealth is eliminated across the board, will not necessarily eliminate their political influence. And that's because the government does not actually function as a plutocracy.
| Quote: |
| Always keep in mind that 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot. |
This garnered a chuckle, thanks. Humor is always a welcomed sight around these parts. BTW, welcome to the board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|
