We need to form a left-wing militia

Emperor Nero said:
In the ancient world, republics and democracies weren't practical at anything but the local level. And lands composed of disunified city states were typically conquered by empires. I suppose you could have some sort of empire or monarchy at the top and then a local democracy. Problem is that, without the ability to put centrally friendly local rulers in place, such systems tended to ferment rebellion. Such empires tended to die and be replaced by the stronger, more centralized ones. The strong rose to the top. The others were pushed aside. That's why, in the circumstances of the ancient world, nearly everyone was ruled by an empire. And that's why, under modern circumstances, democracy is rising to the top. Democracy simply happens to be the strongest system now.

Ogliarchy and republicanism was always idiocy. The ruling class has always tried to justify their position by saying that their wealth and power is justified and good. Aristocracy literally means "rule by the best", in an etymological sense. The lower classes shouldn't concede to this bullshit. Don't swallow the lies.

That's why I think that the Roman Republic wasn't really anything ever worthy of respect anyway, and I think there was no real loss in conceding to the practical reality of empire. It was as indecisive as a democracy and as unfair as an empire. All of the bad, none of the good. It was inevitable that Rome would switch to empire, or be conquered by someone who had.
Click to expand...
or disintigrate into minor kingdoms. You're exactly right.
 
That's why John Adams boasted that American society would be ruled by an aristocracy of the talented and gifted, as opposed to a nobility with titles and powers.
 
Emperor Trajan said:
That's why John Adams boasted that American society would be ruled by an aristocracy of the talented and gifted, as opposed to a nobility with titles and powers.
Click to expand...

Except it's not. The most talented in our society are not paid in proportion to what they put in. Instead, "talented and gifted" bankers and "talented and gifted" CEOs and "talented and gifted" inheritors of estates (who we just forget to call "noble" so that we can feel better about ourselves) are given what they produce, far out of proportion to their talent. You are utterly delusional if you believe that wealth in our society is largely correlated with hard work and talent, as it would be in a meritocracy, instead of luck and ownership, as it was in an aristocracy and is now.
 
Emperor Nero said:
It does not take excellence to acquire wealth, you simpleton. It takes luck and ownership.
Click to expand...

It takes more than luck. How many lottery winners stay wealthy? Luck is certainly a factor, but without hardwork and effort its just as good as effort without luck.
 
Emperor Septimius Severus said:
It takes more than luck. How many lottery winners stay wealthy? Luck is certainly a factor, but without hardwork and effort its just as good as effort without luck.
Click to expand...
It does indeed and those who create wealth are of great value. But the majority of the wealthy inherit their wealth and most of them maintain their wealth through non-productive means, such as investment and lobbying politicians to preserve a status quo that protects their interest. Anyone who believes that an aristocracy of money, primarily old money, does not exist in this nation is a blind fool.
 
apple0154 said:
Or as I like to say, "Luck and circumstance."
Click to expand...
That's not true either. This is a two sided story. There are many who create wealth and become wealthy via their productive skills. There are many others though who, on the other hand, inherit wealth. Many of them never produce wealth in the general sense but maintain their wealth (which is by no means easy either). The problem we see arising in our nation is when to many people dominate a disproportionate level of wealth through non-productive means (like buying off good ole boys in congress). When to few people dominate the wealth and do not put it to productive use to create more wealth then we all suffer. Why do you think for so much of our history we've had very high estate taxes? It was to prevent an aristocracy of money from dominating the national interest. Slowly but surely those laws have been degraded over the last 30 years and now we do have an aristocracy of money and I say good luck in trying to get our nation back!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It does indeed and those who create wealth are of great value. But the majority of the wealthy inherit their wealth and most of them maintain their wealth through non-productive means, such as investment and lobbying politicians to preserve a status quo that protects their interest. Anyone who believes that an aristocracy of money, primarily old money, does not exist in this nation is a blind fool.
Click to expand...

Investment is one of the most productive forms of wealth. Income is barely productive at all, save for that which is spent back into the economy.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not true either. This is a two sided story. There are many who create wealth and become wealthy via their productive skills. There are many others though who, on the other hand, inherit wealth. Many of them never produce wealth in the general sense but maintain their wealth (which is by no means easy either). The problem we see arising in our nation is when to many people dominate a disproportionate level of wealth through non-productive means (like buying off good ole boys in congress). When to few people dominate the wealth and do not put it to productive use to create more wealth then we all suffer. Why do you think for so much of our history we've had very high estate taxes? It was to prevent an aristocracy of money from dominating the national interest. Slowly but surely those laws have been degraded over the last 30 years and now we do have an aristocracy of money and I say good luck in trying to get our nation back!
Click to expand...

While many do become wealthy via their productive skills it takes luck and circumstance. For example, two people each open a butcher shop, both in new subdivisions. New Mayors are elected and one area becomes a housing development and the other area becomes industrial. The one close to the housing development is going to do much better than the guy in the industrial park setting.

Or two people working on a new product. The person who finishes first and applies for a patent wins. The other guy worked just as long and hard, if not more, but fate is fate.

Or someone buys a hardware store and a year later Home Depot moves into the neighborhood. Good-bye hardware store owner. His failure had nothing to do with how hard he worked.

Or someone buys property in a run down area and a few years later developers move in, build expensive condos and the value of the old buildings and lots skyrocket. The owner of an old building did nothing, absolutely nothing, to realize those profits. Just plain luck.

I agree old money plays a major roll. My disagreement is with people who claim hard work always brings success, that failure is due directly to one not applying themselves. The dream, that anyone can "make it", is not only a false dream but is used to criticize those who aren't successful and then blamed for their failure.

The successful person always worked harder, sacrificed more while the unsuccessful are lazy. That is the lie that is perpetuated and used as an excuse not to help those in need.
 
Emperor Trajan said:
Investment is one of the most productive forms of wealth. Income is barely productive at all, save for that which is spent back into the economy.
Click to expand...
You're confusing value with productivity. Investment is very valuable and can be put to productive use but often is not. Ivestment wealth is derived wealth and not productive wealth. Productive wealth is wealth produced from the creation and exchange of goods and services and is always of more value then derived wealth. That is not to say derived wealth is not valuable but rather that it is wholly dependend on productivity to be of any value.

We are now in a point in our history where those who earn their wealth from derivatives are considered of more value (and are rewarded economically) then those who produce wealth. History has not been kind to republics in which this has occurred. In fact it has been a precursor to the collapse of all the great western empires.
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
While many do become wealthy via their productive skills it takes luck and circumstance. For example, two people each open a butcher shop, both in new subdivisions. New Mayors are elected and one area becomes a housing development and the other area becomes industrial. The one close to the housing development is going to do much better than the guy in the industrial park setting.

Or two people working on a new product. The person who finishes first and applies for a patent wins. The other guy worked just as long and hard, if not more, but fate is fate.

Or someone buys a hardware store and a year later Home Depot moves into the neighborhood. Good-bye hardware store owner. His failure had nothing to do with how hard he worked.

Or someone buys property in a run down area and a few years later developers move in, build expensive condos and the value of the old buildings and lots skyrocket. The owner of an old building did nothing, absolutely nothing, to realize those profits. Just plain luck.

I agree old money plays a major roll. My disagreement is with people who claim hard work always brings success, that failure is due directly to one not applying themselves. The dream, that anyone can "make it", is not only a false dream but is used to criticize those who aren't successful and then blamed for their failure.

The successful person always worked harder, sacrificed more while the unsuccessful are lazy. That is the lie that is perpetuated and used as an excuse not to help those in need.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I don't agree. Luck and circumstances come into play some times but not always and even when they do one must have the skills required to capitalize on the luck and circumstances which may arize. With out the productives skills to do that luck and circumstances mean very little. Even those who inherit wealth and do little of productive use to create wealth (other than for themselves) they still have to have the skills neccessary to protect and preserve that wealth or it will simply dissappear. Luck and circumstances certainly come into play but you can't divorce those from the productive ability and hard work required to create wealth. By your definition of luck and circumstances wealth is a static thing. It is not. It must be produced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top