ForumGarden

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?

yep. it's called Communism. and in practice, it doesn't work.

coberst;735285 wrote: 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?


Actually the earliest form of government was a kind of elected kingship with everybody having an say in important decisions. Inherited monarchy was not the norm until the middle ages when it became accepted-divine right of kings and all that as warlords sought to establish their dynarties and conned the people they had a right to rule. Having got rid of those who had conquered them The romans went from republic to emperor in the space of a few decades the process being an endlessly fascinating one.

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.


Come off it who on earth falls for that one nowadays?

Can a democratic society function effectively if no individuals are allowed to inherit great wealth




Well yes. Most noticeably the UK where the capital transfer tax and later inheritance tax was specifically designed to break up big estates. More to the point the power of the king was curtailed and that of the aristocracy was also controlled. Better question would be can democracy survive when people are allowed to accumulate too much power and wealth and count themselves as being above the law of the common people? Most civilised countries have some kind of taxation in place to ensure equitable distribution of wealth-

postd by wolverine

yep. it's called Communism. and in practice, it doesn't work.




Communism doesn't but there are alternatives such as social democracy which is not the same as communism but the clever thing is the way in some countries people get conned in to thinking they don't have the right to demand social change and a better spread of resources and share in the wealth of a nation and access to the benefits of an advanced society because that is communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Tyrant, democracy and monarch are all greek in origin. You don't get the divine right of kings until Christianity comes along. That is what is meant by religion being the opiate of the people-it's used to persuade people to accept what is by any light gross injustice and iniquity in society because god has ordained it so-rich man in his castle poor man at the gate

Coberst asked " Can a democratic society function effectively if no individuals are allowed to inherit great wealth?"



It really doesn't matter, because there will always be those that through their own initiative are able to accumulate great wealth and yet not have the capacity for well reasoned social, moral or political conscience.

Lon;735547 wrote: Coberst asked " Can a democratic society function effectively if no individuals are allowed to inherit great wealth?"



It really doesn't matter, because there will always be those that through their own initiative are able to accumulate great wealth and yet not have the capacity for well reasoned social, moral or political conscience.


That's why we construct bodied of law to control and sanction someone who would abuse their power. Even capitalism requires a system of checks and balances to keep things under control. Monopolies for instance, are anti capitalist and require there be means to stop them being achieved by those who are in a position to do so..

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.