Oligarchy Confirmed - Democracy Is Dead In The U.S.

[Traditio]

I actually agree with your point about our needing great leaders, and then giving them the ability to create major change. But where are they? That just doesn't seem to be how history shakes out. Unfortunately, it appears that great leaders are very rare. And they tend not to come along when we need them most. Like now.

Democratic systems inherintly preclude "great leaders" in that sense. Democratic systems inherintly produce demagogues and sophists, i.e., silver-tongued figureheads who are just going to tell the people what they want to hear.

You want great leaders who have real power to shape society? Then democracy has to go.

We just do seem to be able to see ourselves heading for disaster, and so we just aren't willing to fight to change the direction we're going. I can see it, but mostly I feel like I'm alone. Everyone else wants to squabble over petty social issues while the whole ship of state is sinking into the ocean of greed and corruption.

And note, even when I gave you the chance to tell me what your actual solutions to the problem would look like, you didn't have any. You realize this, yes? I basically asked you: "Ok. Offer me specific forms of legislation that would fix the problems that you're talking about." What you've basically said is "it's hopeless." That's why people don't focus on issues like that.

Because you actually want a real solution? Then you end up holding positions like mine, and people don't like ideas like mine. They don't want to be ruled by the rulers. They don't want to be told what's best for them. (Of course, the corporate elite have already usurped these positions of authority and do all of that already, but let's ignore that; at least it's not "official," right?)

In fact, people don't want a Judge Dredd style system. Is it about the only thing that could solve our problems? You betcha. But people don't want the government having that kind of authority or being that far removed from the desires of the public. People don't want to be ruled by their rulers. They want to rule the rulers. That's why the coorporate elite have won; that's why we are living in a de facto oligarchy. It's part and parcel of democratic rule.

 

[The Barbarian]

In fact, people don't want a Judge Dredd style system. Is it about the only thing that could solve our problems?

The problem, of course, is who sets himself about other humans to decide what is just? That's been tried a lot. Judge Dredd, as good as his intentions might be at the start, always ends up corrupt and evil.

Humans are not capable of handling unrestricted power. We will always abuse it, even if we don't intend to do so.

This is why government has to be limited, and power must always be dispersed.




You betcha. But people don't want the government having that kind of authority or being that far removed from the desires of the public. People don't want to be ruled by their rulers. They want to rule the rulers. That's why the coorporate elite have won; that's why we are living in a de facto oligarchy. It's part and parcel of democratic rule.

 

[Traditio]

The problem, of course, is who sets himself about other humans to decide what is just? That's been tried a lot. Judge Dredd, as good as his intentions might be at the start, always ends up corrupt and evil.

Humans are not capable of handling unrestricted power. We will always abuse it, even if we don't intend to do so.

This is why government has to be limited, and power must always be dispersed.

That's democratic rhetoric, smoke and mirrors, and nothing more. Whenever I hear that, I have to ask myself: "Compared to what?" It's easy to throw out these platitudes. Why? Because such a system has never been tried. :idunno:

 

[bybee]

That's democratic rhetoric, smoke and mirrors, and nothing more. Whenever I hear that, I have to ask myself: "Compared to what?" It's easy to throw out these platitudes. Why? Because such a system has never been tried. :idunno:

It seems that the Confucian Meritocracy was a very good system in it's day.

 

[PureX]

Who is this about? the rich who don't work for it.

It's not about the 'who', it's about the nature of our economic system. Capitalism is a system that rewards wealth with wealth. The capital investor has all the control, and reaps all the rewards. Capitalism does not reward hard work with wealth, it does not reward inventiveness with wealth and it does not reward honesty with wealth as so many of us have been taught and keep imagining to be true. It's a system that without deliberate mechanisms to redistribute wealth, inevitably rewards wealth with more wealth until only a few people control most of the wealth. And with it control the lives and livelihoods of everyone else.

These people are not elected, and cannot be 'fired' or demoted or otherwise countermanded for their anti-social behavior. This is oligarchy. And this is where we are, now.

 

[PureX]

And note, even when I gave you the chance to tell me what your actual solutions to the problem would look like, you didn't have any. You realize this, yes?

I have offered solutions many times on many threads. The solution is a limited democracy with a well articulated and moderately socialist set of prime directives that limit and guide the majority, the wealthy, and the government, alike.

I basically asked you: "Ok. Offer me specific forms of legislation that would fix the problems that you're talking about."

We need to end the legalized bribery of the legislature. We need to eliminate the influence of wealth on the election process. We need to eliminate 'gerrymandering'. We need to encourage alternative party participation in the electoral process. We need to socialize essential public services like transportation, communication, and health care. We need to tax the accumulation of wealth and use that money to create jobs for the poor and unemployed. And we need to create a means of establishing some new national directives involving the use of military force, relations with other nations, the goals of commercial interaction, and the well-being of our own citizens, and the people of the world.

What you've basically said is "it's hopeless." That's why people don't focus on issues like that.

It's hopeless because people think it's hopeless. Or they don't think at all. We get the government we allow. If we don't like the government we have, it's our responsibility to fix it. Even if that means revolution and bloodshed. We could fix it now without revolution and bloodshed, but for some reason we just don't have the will. And that's what I don't understand.

 

[whitestone]

PureX,the issue of taxing accumulated wealth is of no consequence(you are in the correct type mindset though),,but it will not help. I will give you several examples,,,,at the beginning of the so called war on terror we frequently saw on the news that they were going to "follow the money",that is of the terrorist but the first hurdle was the fact that these terrorist "did not use the common banking system",,that is they do/did NOT USE THE BANKING SYSTEM YOU ARE USING.

You are seeing this "captive to the U.S. banking system",,,now I can see why you do,it's because you,live in the U.S.,were probably born there,watch the news there,follow politics there(no problem with me on this I also was born in the U.S.)

When someone/anyone begins in life(financially) in the U.S. they are taught to open a bank account,get credit cards,save money,invest in land/houses ect.ect.... It is accepted as normal to do and think this way and is instilled into the citizens of the U.S. from birth to think this way. If someone does not do this,think this way ect. they are "misfits,deadbeats,lazy,unlearned ect." or else thats the thought instilled into them from birth.

So the answer would seem easy enough as you point out (IF ANY OF THEM WERE DUMB ENOUGH TO KEEP THEIR MONEY IN A U.S. BANK),,,but the fact is all who do participate in the U.S. banking systems (debit cards,credit scores,credit cards,mortgages,financing things ect.) will eventually loose everything they own,,,,that is the same financial system that tricks people into using the things they own(as collateral for a loan) while the U.S. dollar is valued at .75 on a dollar in an economy where people are living high on the hog and buying homes,cars ect. can also (ANY TIME THEY WANT,MAKE THE DOLLAR WORTH .25 ON A DOLLAR,AND TAKE YOUR LAND,COLLATERAL ECT. FROM YOU JUST WHEN YOU ARE ABOUT TO PAY OFF YOUR LOANS)...

As I said I understand why you see this captive to only the U.S. as if it is the total sum,but it is by far not. The entire worlds economy is the part that is never addressed,why(?),,,"you cannot control it". So in the U.S. there will always be in the news the "EAR-MARK" at the announcement of each candidate as they enter the race for President. They will always say "Jeb Bush raised a hundred million in campaign funds",but another will say "Hillery raised even more". In this is probably the only truth we will ever see in the news that is "candidate A raised this much,so since candidate B couldn't they wont get to be the President"...

Now as long as this is the norm the lobbyist will send their people to Washington to pass laws. So it is the norm that the people will be told they "must/mandate" buy car insurance,you "must/mandate" have health insurance,you "must/mandate" hire a licensed and bonded contractor to install your plumbing,electrical,tree removal ect. ect. (why,in a few years when we decide to go into a recession and repossess all the things we don't want junk!).

In the American mind(U.S.,not the Americans from Central,South or Canada) the common people go through the same cycle every few years they always have, "they get laid off and loose everything,they begin again,they buy another car,another house financing them all,,,and then the economy changes and the things they bought go back to the lenders to be re-sold when they decide to re-adjust the economy)

The just is in the U.S. it's people are always discussing "how to fix the economy,the Government,ect." but that was never the thing that was broken. The fact is none will ever pay off their debts(your not suppose to if you do they will need to give you the title) but if you never do they will always own it,and the property it is on.

Imagine it this way,,,if I were a banker(?),,,if I controlled who I could give loans to,then I could determine who to give money to. So if I gave money to a rich man he will pay the entire balance and all I will have for my efforts is the interest on the loan(who owes the taxes on the property until it is paid off?),,,who owes the I.R.S. for the money sitting in the bank(interest on the loan)?

lol,in the Bible we are told not to use "usury",now as Christians we debate over issues in the scriptures that are as small as a hair but "usury" never comes up,lol. In times past banks,usury ect. were "taboo" but in the modern world it is the way of life(U.S.).

Here is a "tip" ,,,,"I (USE) the banks,they do not USE ME!",,,I do not have a DEBIT CARD(pin number in my forehead),I do not keep my money in their banks,I do not borrow money from them,I do not use their credit cards,I do not use my properties as collateral ect.ect,,,,

Day after tomorrow when they decide to make a thousand dollars buy a weeks worth of food,or the day after that when a dime will pay all of the bills makes no difference to me, that is I know that they will always make it to so they themselves are rich.

Again contrary to the common belief in the U.S. they believe that the matter at hand is to "fix the economy" but thats from the common peoples point of view. The issue at hand is to maintain a certain level of economy(one where people have some trust and buy),then when they finance things they will all be given 10-15 year loans because then they will pay their monthly notes(with interest),they will pay "almost the whole loan",but not the whole loan and every 10-15 years we will take the nation into a recession and they will be laid off of their jobs,fall behind on their notes and then I will repossess their home and sit on it till we make the economy boom again and sell it again.

So the math then you see is the answer you buy a house that I loaned you 40,000.00 plus interest on,you pay 700.00, 12 month's a year for 4 years so you sent me 33,600.00 and the economy goes south,you fall behind on your notes I repossess your home at a total cost to me of "6,400.00"(THANKS FOR BUYING ME THIS HOUSE!),,,well for at least helping me get for 6,400.00 I'll paint it and put it back on the market for 53,000.00 the next time we tell the economy to go north.,,,,

Truth is though "I'm not a banker,lol" but never the less I own my homes,I own my cars(because I didn't finance them). If the stock market next Monday crashes and they tell us the dollar is worth .4 on a dollar I'll say "wow,them poor people,all their money is worthless".

The whole world wonders if anyone will every "fix the economy and the Government" but guess what it isn't broke. If I can buy a farm for 500.00(common in the 1800's) or 500,000.00(today's price/U.S.) makes no difference.

Anyway the economy is "NOT BROKEN" (to them) it is to 99% of the world but to them the plan from the beginning is to finance every house,every business,every farm then make money worth nothing,repossess all the farms,houses,and businesses collect up all the worthless money(.20 on a dollar) and then when they own/possess all of it turn it around and make their 20 billion dollars that are not worth .20 on a dollar worth .95 cents on a dollar.

Now it's the money game isn't it? the greatest get rich scheme ever,that is "don't fix the economy,crumble it",and when it's worth nothing collect it up and then "fix the economy". So if I was worth 4,billion when the money is worth nothing(.20 on a dollar) how much will I be worth when it goes back to .95 on a dollar?

 

[The Berean]

Democratic systems inherintly preclude "great leaders" in that sense. Democratic systems inherintly produce demagogues and sophists, i.e., silver-tongued figureheads who are just going to tell the people what they want to hear.

You want great leaders who have real power to shape society? Then democracy has to go.



And note, even when I gave you the chance to tell me what your actual solutions to the problem would look like, you didn't have any. You realize this, yes? I basically asked you: "Ok. Offer me specific forms of legislation that would fix the problems that you're talking about." What you've basically said is "it's hopeless." That's why people don't focus on issues like that.

Because you actually want a real solution? Then you end up holding positions like mine, and people don't like ideas like mine. They don't want to be ruled by the rulers. They don't want to be told what's best for them. (Of course, the corporate elite have already usurped these positions of authority and do all of that already, but let's ignore that; at least it's not "official," right?)

In fact, people don't want a Judge Dredd style system. Is it about the only thing that could solve our problems? You betcha. But people don't want the government having that kind of authority or being that far removed from the desires of the public. People don't want to be ruled by their rulers. They want to rule the rulers. That's why the coorporate elite have won; that's why we are living in a de facto oligarchy. It's part and parcel of democratic rule.

Why do you believe that philosopher-kings would know what's best for everyone? What qualifications would a philosopher-king have that another person would not have? Also, would these philosopher-kings be immune to corruption, greed, and demagoguery?

 

[bybee]

Why do you believe that philosopher-kings would know what's best for everyone? What qualifications would a philosopher-king have that another person would not have? Also, would these philosopher-kings be immune to corruption, greed, and demagoguery?

The older I get the more intrigued I am by the idea of "Philosopher/Kings".
If I remember correctly they could not bequeath the title to their offspring and they were not to own anything of significance.
They were to be trained for years in how to manage and lead their people through a rigorous process of education and demonstration of lessons learned.
They would not be expected to "know what is best for everyone" but rather to set a moral and legal climate wherein the greatest good for the greatest number might occur.
It is an interesting concept.

 

[Selaphiel]

One would think that a Christian philosopher would understand the reality of sin well enough to see the fatal flaw in the "Judge Dredd type of rule". The fact that someone possesses a lot of knowledge and understanding does not make them free from the reality of sin (will to power, egoism or whatever you want to call it). Knowing what justice entails and being just is not the same same thing.

 

[elohiym]

Revelation 13:4 they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?"

Who is able to wage war against the oligarchy, the beast?

 

[The Berean]

One would think that a Christian philosopher would understand the reality of sin well enough to see the fatal flaw in the "Judge Dredd type of rule". The fact that someone possesses a lot of knowledge and understanding does not make them free from the reality of sin (will to power, egoism or whatever you want to call it). Knowing what justice entails and being just is not the same same thing.

Well put Selaphiel. I've never read the actual Judge Dredd comics. I have seen both films but from what I've been told by Judge Dredd fans neither film really captures the essence or the nuanced meaning of the Judge Dredd comic. Just as films the second film is far superior to the first film but extremely graphic and violent. This happens with petty much all comic book based films. They capture "the look" and action of the comic book but always fall short of dealing with nuanced perspectives often found in comic books.

***********************************
From wikipedia this describes the "street judge".

In the comic strip, Judges are the product of many years' training and psychological conditioning. Training, which takes place in the Academy of Law, generally begins at age five. The Judges recruit promising children, and grow their own clones. Judge Dredd is himself a clone of the Judges' founder, Chief Judge Fargo.

The Judges themselves are not above the law – a violation that would earn a citizen a few months in an Iso[lation]-Cube earns a Judge a twenty-year sentence of hard labor on Saturn's moon, Titan, after surgical modification to enable the convict to survive Titan's atmosphere.

For most of the strip's history, the Judges are led by a Chief Judge and a Council of Five. The Judges have their own domestic intelligence division (the Public Surveillance Unit),[5] and their own medical facilities. There are a number of specialist divisions within the Judges, notably Psi Division, which consists of psychic judges used to predict the future and read minds, and Tek Division, made of forensic scientists and engineers. The SJS (Special Judicial Squad) monitor and police the Judges internally.

In the Judge Dredd future history, the Judge System originated in the United States (see History of Mega-City One), but spread around the world. In most of these nations the Judges control all aspects of the government; but differ in customs: the Judges of Ireland, for example, are allowed to drink and smoke, or be married, whereas MC-1 Judges have virtually no private life. Corruption is endemic amongst the Judges of Brit-Cit, and bribery is often essential to progress through the ranks.

Block Judges (Judges assigned to a particular cityblock) also hear civil cases in each City Block, where they try compensation claims, libel, slander, divorce, alimony, and small claims matters.

Notable Judges appearing in the series include Judge Anderson (of Psi Division), Judge Hershey, Judge Kraken, Judge Giant, and the eponymous Judge Dredd...

...Before becoming fully fledged street judges, cadet judges usually must spend 15 years (or, exceptionally, 13 years) at the Academy of Law, where they receive intensive training and conditioning.

A cadet is inducted into the Academy either as a cloned infant (as does Judge Dredd), or as a child aged five (although older children have been recruited). After this, unsupervised contact with the city outside is forbidden, in order to maintain the strictest discipline and mental conditioning.

Cadet Judges must leave both the Academy and the city itself during their "Hotdog Run": a training mission into the Cursed Earth, to test the cadets under combat conditions; fatalities are not unknown. A senior Judge will command and assess the cadets during the Hotdog Run.

On graduating from the Academy, cadets become known as rookie judges. A rookie's uniform is similar to that of a full judge, with two differences: the helmet is white rather than black and red, and the badge consists of only one half of a full judge's badge and does not show the rookie's name (this design is sometimes varied by artists; see illustration, right). (Note however that some artists have wrongly depicted cadets in rookies' uniforms, and rookies in full judges' uniforms).

Before becoming a full judge, a rookie must undergo assessment by a more experienced Senior Judge. The failure rate is extremely high, and the few who pass their Final Assessment exchange their white helmet and "half-eagle" for the black and red helmet and "full eagle" at a brief ceremony before the chief judge.

Notable characters seen taking their final assessments are the original Judge Giant, the other Judge Giant, Judge Rico, Judge Kraken, and Dredd himself (in flashbacks). The film Dredd depicts Judge Anderson's final assessment.

Cadets who fail to graduate are expelled from the Academy. Rookies who fail their final assessment earlier had no right of appeal,[14] but this is no longer the case. Failed cadets and rookies are either employed as auxiliaries or leave the Justice Department altogether.

Ever since the Day Of Chaos storyline, the department has taken on retrainees; judges transferred from other megacities to bolster their ranks...

When a street judge retires from service at the end of his career, he may choose to leave Mega-City One for exile outside the city. He may do this either in the Cursed Earth, a radioactive desert outside the city walls, or in the Undercity, the ruins of New York that lie beneath the mega-city. The Long Walk begins with a brief ceremony at the city gates, wherein the retiring judge walks through an honour guard of judges as they discharge their firearms into the air, while another judge formally bids him farewell. Once they take the Long Walk, judges are expected never to return, but to die "bringing law to the lawless".

Retiring judges may also be placed in administrative or teaching posts, instead of taking the Long Walk. The Long Walk may however be the best for to a judge who has been subject to disciplinary proceedings for misconduct not warranting criminal prosecution.

Cursed Earth Judges are essentially vigilantes. Although they are expected to uphold the same standards of behavior as street judges, they receive no supervision or support from the city. As such, some of them openly flout the code of practice that street judges must obey- drinking, smoking, or breaking celibacy for example. Cursed Earth judges also to act as traveling magistrates, holding makeshift small-claims courts in the various settlements around the wasteland; for these, the arrival of a judge is a rare and exciting event, akin to a carnival, and therefore, along with legitimate grievances, some villagers file frivolous or ridiculous cases for entertainment value.

The Long Walk was introduced in 2000 AD #147, in the 1980 story "Judge Minty," written by John Wagner. In the 1995 feature film, the Long Walk is mandatory for all Judges upon retirement...

The Judge System was created by Eustace Fargo, special government prosecutor for street crime, between 2027 and 2031, to combat a rising tide of violent crime and to speed up the process of justice. While there was heavy protest in Congress over the idea of abandoning due process, the electorate was in favour and President Gurney (who supported Fargo's plan) was re-elected with a massive majority. The original uniforms heavily resembled that of normal American police officers, albeit with helmets and heavy body armour, and rode Lawranger motorcycles.

Following the Third World War of 2070 and discovering that President Booth had stolen the election, the Judges invoked the "oldest law of them all" overthrowing the Government of the United States and seizing power, with popular support, and the chief judge became the country's ruler. The Judicial model has subsequently spread throughout the globe becoming the most common form of government on Earth by the 22nd century.
*************************************

It sounds like a street judge is basically law expert with advanced military style combat training. And the street judges in the comic book are NOT perfect enforcers of justice either.

 

[Traditio]

Why do you believe that philosopher-kings would know what's best for everyone? What qualifications would a philosopher-king have that another person would not have? Also, would these philosopher-kings be immune to corruption, greed, and demagoguery?

For the purposes of this argument, I don't have to tell you that philosopher-kings or street judges would be -immune- to corruption, greed, demogoguery, and, otherwise, the reality of human frailty, ignorance and sin, or that these things would perfectly instantiated justice.

I simply have to show you that it's better than what we have now.

And by PureX's own admission, our government does not dole out justice impartially. It's in the pockets of the corporate elite. Our government has sold out. Furthermore, if you seriously think about what democracy is, demagoguery and selling out are -part and parcel,- inherent risks, to a democratic system. Democracy means caring about numbers. It means caring about what the voter says. It means that the rulers have to "mix" with the ruled. It means that you have to win a popularity contest to rule.

Now consider the alternatives that I propose: street judges, on the one hand, or philospoher kings, on the other. Why would they care about political donors when they never run for election? Why would they care about numbers or voter interests when they never campaign (thus all but eliminating the risk of demagogery; they simply have no reason to do so)? Why would they leap into the pockets of corporations when they have no concerns about money or lasting fianncial security, and when they were never raised to value money (but, rather, justice) it in the first place? And why should they care about special interests when, being transcendent over the people, they only turn their eyes to the people in judgment?

Could philosopher kings or street judges go bad? Sure, in some cases. But it would be despite the odds, despite the circumstances, despite their education, despite the system...not because of it.

Democracy has failed, has gone bad, because of democracy.

You'll tell me that street judges or philosopher kings wouldn't enact perfect justice; as humans, they would always fall short. I tell you that the democrat isn't even seriously trying.

 

[Traditio]

I have offered solutions many times on many threads. The solution is a limited democracy with a well articulated and moderately socialist set of prime directives that limit and guide the majority, the wealthy, and the government, alike.

Ultimately, you and I are in agreement, at least on this point: the answer to democratic problems is less democracy. I just go further than you. :idunno:

We need to end the legalized bribery of the legislature. We need to eliminate the influence of wealth on the election process. We need to eliminate 'gerrymandering'.

Good luck on that.

We need to encourage alternative party participation in the electoral process.

A page from the Fading of the Light comic (part of the America series) of Judge Dredd comes to mind on this issue:

"Democracy: Let's look at it another way. We had an election. Only 57 percent of electors even bothered to vote. Over half of them voted for candidates who did not get elected - - so we're down to 28 percent. Following me? The ruling party came in with a third of what was left - that's 9 percent, give or take. They're kept in power by an assortment of fringe parties and independents - - throw them a few crumbs and they'll do what they're told, so they don't count. So when you come down to it, only one citizen in ten actually wants the government they elected. And most of them don't even know what they voted for. That's the wya it is, that's the way it's always been, right down through the ages. Democracy? Power to the people? Don't kid yourselves" (Judge Dredd in Fading of the Light).

We need to socialize essential public services like transportation, communication, and health care. We need to tax the accumulation of wealth and use that money to create jobs for the poor and unemployed. And we need to create a means of establishing some new national directives involving the use of military force, relations with other nations, the goals of commercial interaction, and the well-being of our own citizens, and the people of the world.

All of this is much less controversial than anything I've said.

 

[The Berean]

For the purposes of this argument, I don't have to tell you that philosopher-kings or street judges would be -immune- to corruption, greed, demogoguery, and, otherwise, the reality of human frailty, ignorance and sin, or that these things would perfectly instantiated justice.

I simply have to show you that it's better than what we have now.

And by PureX's own admission, our government does not dole out justice impartially. It's in the pockets of the corporate elite. Our government has sold out. Furthermore, if you seriously think about what democracy is, demagoguery and selling out are -part and parcel,- inherent risks, to a democratic system. Democracy means caring about numbers. It means caring about what the voter says. It means that the rulers have to "mix" with the ruled. It means that you have to win a popularity contest to rule.

Now consider the alternatives that I propose: street judges, on the one hand, or philospoher kings, on the other. Why would they care about political donors when they never run for election? Why would they care about numbers or voter interests when they never campaign (thus all but eliminating the risk of demagogery; they simply have no reason to do so)? Why would they leap into the pockets of corporations when they have no concerns about money or lasting fianncial security, and when they were never raised to value money (but, rather, justice) it in the first place? And why should they care about special interests when, being transcendent over the people, they only turn their eyes to the people in judgment?

Could philosopher kings or street judges go bad? Sure, in some cases. But it would be despite the odds, despite the circumstances, despite their education, despite the system...not because of it.

Democracy has failed, has gone bad, because of democracy.

You'll tell me that street judges or philosopher kings wouldn't enact perfect justice; as humans, they would always fall short. I tell you that the democrat isn't even seriously trying.

You're missing one thing, Trad. Human history has shown repeatedly that people do not like authoritarian rule for very long. In your system of government I think you would be waist deep in rebellion and revolution constantly.

On a similar note, Trad, I think this is going to be you in 20 years teaching.

.

 

[kmoney]

It's not about the 'who', it's about the nature of our economic system.

Surely you have some people in mind though. Who are these 'non-working rich'?

Capitalism is a system that rewards wealth with wealth. The capital investor has all the control, and reaps all the rewards. Capitalism does not reward hard work with wealth, it does not reward inventiveness with wealth and it does not reward honesty with wealth as so many of us have been taught and keep imagining to be true. It's a system that without deliberate mechanisms to redistribute wealth, inevitably rewards wealth with more wealth until only a few people control most of the wealth. And with it control the lives and livelihoods of everyone else.

These people are not elected, and cannot be 'fired' or demoted or otherwise countermanded for their anti-social behavior. This is oligarchy. And this is where we are, now.

Are you picturing wealth that is passed down through families who then use that wealth to gain more wealth? That's the only thing I can picture when I read this. Otherwise, how would the capitalist get the wealth in the first place by which they generate more?

Define 'capitalism' and 'work'.

Capitalism surely can and does reward hard work, inventiveness, and honesty. But I won't deny that once some wealth is accumulated it becomes easier to accumulate more and that honesty doesn't always pay.

I might get behind some of the changes you want but I'm not convinced that everything you see is truly a problem with capitalism.

 

[kmoney]

I have offered solutions many times on many threads. The solution is a limited democracy

What do you mean by limited democracy?

 

[PureX]

Surely you have some people in mind though. Who are these 'non-working rich'?

Capitalists don't work for a living. They invest money and live off the dividends. Capital investment is not in itself a bad thing, but in the capitalist system, the decision-making authority goes to the capital investor, who does not actually participate in the commercial enterprise he's invested in. Which means he is not much concerned for the well being of those who are. All he's concerned about is maximizing the return on his investment. And this places his goal in antipathy with the goals of the people participating in the commercial enterprise. Which is why capitalism is fundamentally anti-social, and cannot be allowed to flourish unrestrained.

If the capital investor is the principal owner and operator of the business he's invested in, he is more likely to participate directly in it's operation, and therefor care more about the well-being of the other people involved (customer and employees, community and environment). But even then, he has the sole decision-making authority and his primary objective is still to maximize the return on his investment. Which is why even smaller, owner-operated businesses still so often become fundamentally anti-social.

Are you picturing wealth that is passed down through families who then use that wealth to gain more wealth? That's the only thing I can picture when I read this. Otherwise, how would the capitalist get the wealth in the first place by which they generate more?

Luck, cleverness, ruthlessness, … there are lots of ways and reasons that some people manage to accumulate enough wealth to become capital investors. And yes, often, the worst of them become generational; like the Walton family, each of whom is worth billions of dollars that they did not earn, but simply inherited, yet they stash their wealth off-shore so they don't have to pay their share of taxes, and they refuse to pay their own employees a living wage or benefits, while they procure their goods from foreign sweatshops where workers are horribly abused and exploited, and who use their vast wealth to bribe the legislature to gain an even greater advantage within the capitalist system. And this is just one well-known example. There are a hundred others that behave in much the same way. Because that's the behavior our system encourages, and rewards.

Define 'capitalism' and 'work'.

Capitalism is simply the term for an economic system that gives all it's business decision-making control to the capital investor.

And work is defined as actual human productivity.

Capitalism surely can and does reward hard work, inventiveness, and honesty.

Only grudgingly. The goal of the capital investor is to maximize his return on the capital he invested. That places his goal in antipathy with everyone else's. The capitalist does not "reward hard work" because in fact, he would pay the hard worker absolutely nothing if he could get away with it. Because that would maximize the return on his investment. He only pays the worker whatever he does because he has to, and even then he pays as little as possible for whatever work occurs.

It is a myth that capitalism rewards hard work. In fact, in most cases, the people who work the hardest in our capitalist system receive the least compensation. Because what capitalism really rewards is greed, cleverness, ruthlessness and luck, which the capitalists and their supporters wrongly label "ambition". Actual hard work is what the capitalists seek to exploit, not reward.

I won't deny that once some wealth is accumulated it becomes easier to accumulate more and that honesty doesn't always pay.

I might get behind some of the changes you want but I'm not convinced that everything you see is truly a problem with capitalism.

The fundamental problem with capitalism is that it's anti-social. It's a system designed to advantage individuals of dubious virtue at the expense of everyone else. An honest hard-working man is not likely to be invested in by capitalists except as an object of exploitation. Every capitalist wants to hire an honest hard-working man, but only because that man will return a better profit on the capitalist's investment. And even then, he'll only pay the man what he has to, to keep him. Honesty and effort are only virtues to be exploited in the capitalist system. The "virtues" that get rewarded are those that help maximize a profitable return: like greed, avarice, ruthlessness, selfishness: an "I'll do whatever it takes" attitude. This is the kind of man the capitalists hire as their CEOs. And this is the kind of men they reward so handsomely with big salaries and bonuses (and who then become capitalists, themselves). Because these are the men who maximize their return of the capital they invest.

 

[PureX]

What do you mean by limited democracy?

Limited in that the well-being of the minority must be protected from the will of the majority. Just as the well-being of the people must be protected from the authority of their government. To do this, a system has to be set up that keeps everyone's natural selfish instincts in check, yet still allow for as much individual freedom and autonomy as is possible.

What we're looking for is a balance between freedom and mutual respect, based on the fundamental principal of the equality of every individual citizen. So far, the only way humans have devised of achieving this is through a limited democracy where everyone is being minimally restrained by a set of immutable principals. Basically; a constitutional democracy.

Unfortunately, this is a very new idea (only a few hundred years since inception) and we have not managed to clearly articulate those principals, yet. And our attempts at constitutional democracy have found only minimal success as a result. But I think the path is clear, and humanity will follow it, and perfect it, in time (if we don't destroy ourselves, first). It's already achieving some amazing results in some smaller northern European countries.

 

[The Barbarian]

We have a limited democracy. That was the founders' intent. The ultimate power remains with voters, but the Constitution rules. We can change it, through a rather difficult process, which is a safeguard on our liberties.