Is Plutocracy Or Ruled By The Wealthy Such A Bad Thing?

End welfare and there will be no unproductive people because they will have no safety net to live from. Either they would submit to the wealthy rule of order and work for them or be housed in private/public prisons for going against the natural order of society as many do now who don't think welfare is enough to provide for their needs.

 

They make applying mods to Fallout: New Vegas more complicated. I'm against that.

 

Plutocracy is one of the worst things and is a kind of dictatorship. And we already live in a plutocracy, then in a dictatorship. There is no more question about that. Plutocracy is a pure authoritarian model with the condemnation to the poverty to the workers.

And about the nonsense of hard workers, I am really tired. If I am a worker and I work 12 hours per day during 6 days/week, but I am having a wage of 1500$/month never I will be wealthy, even I will be one more, even poor(socially), but I am a hard worker. I have enough of that falacy of the rightist people of hard workers. You only want that workers have a slavery life. And with a plutocracy you will get that. Thank you, neoliberals.

 

No; because the amount of wealth we are talking about, affords those with such wealth, a measure of power, which serves to MUTE the voices of individual citizens. We already know that that elections CAN be bought; either those or politicians themselves.

Putting "money" ahead of the well-being of the middle class, literally endangers Democracy.

 

You are spot-on correct!!

 

Uh.. Kilgram.. working 12/6 and making $1500 a month was the good old days. Try more like 16 hrs, 7 days a week, for $200 a month. That is the NEW WORLD ORDER standard, as now in operation in China, and soon will be world wide standard, thanx to Global Corporate Plutocracy.

 

Yeah. That's what it looks like in general. I wish I could say you were wrong.

 

that is sort of true, workin over time in the 90s really paid off but working overtime today with all the inflation and high prices for natural resources its just enough to pay the bills

 

it is capitalism 200 a month is for unproductive laborers, the productive workers get paid more

 

Ending welfare and not doing anything else would simply cause a lot of stupid people to reproduce and have kids they can't support and then go with said kids to the streets and sell said kids as prostitutes on the streets.

I disagree with welfarism for the most part, but your right wing solution of letting not only poor adults, but children of said irresponsible poor adults, starve/freeze to death, is moronic and unjust. I say we strip said irresponsible adults of their children that they shouldn't be raising and give them to people for (voluntary) adoption.

 

That is a violation of individual liberty if the state takes away children from parents they deem 'unfit'. Using the example in the above post the best way is to let them sink or swim in Germany for instance the state promotes capitalism by letting the parents go into prostitution and it could be a lucrative family business so long as the legal age remains 18 and over for when the adult children take over the family business so they don't feel exploited that they were forced into it at a younger age.

 

what the hell is your point? Be at least a bit concise in why plutocracy would be a good thing. You give the impression of someone who supports nepotism and believes the rich would be such able rulers that they would form some kind of trickle-down egalitarian utopia. I would agree , but there are to things you need to take into account. First off the amount of monetary wealth someone has amassed is no indication of their intelligence nor their ability to rule. Secondly the rich are not some group of god-like philanthropist , they are often driven mad with wealth and giving them more power would just lead to horrible conflicts between the factions of the rich with the commoners as causalities.

 

It's a violation of a child's civil liberties to let them starve to death. If you were 4 years old and your parents beat you and/or let you starve/freeze on the streets, would that be just in your mind? (*)(*)(*)(*) that and (*)(*)(*)(*) you if you think so.

 

Why do you have a job? Is it not because some evil rich person invented something that you make or sell? Or is it because the evil rich man likes having people randomly make stuff for no reason? No product, no company, no company no jobs. I shouldn't have to explain the basics to you -- but the thing is that you have a job because some rich guy has work that needs to be done.

 

It is not bad in a market economy per se. Think about it, the better the overall population does financially the more product or services they can sell and the better the market the higher the prices they can sell them at. I suppose if you are cynical you would assume that the US has been run since it's inception by the wealthy and obviously there would be some truth to that.

 

To address point number one in the above post, yes monetary wealth may not be a good measure for intelligence of an individual but it does measure their aptitude for success and a successful country must be led by those with ambition.

Second point agreed the rich may not be good philanthropists because wealth increases temptation and self indulgence BUT is philanthropy a neccessary value for good leadership? Many great leaders were never great philanthropists.

 

That is not in order with the line of thought, if the parents were allowed to be self employed as prostitutes as Germany allows and almost mandated for poor women there so that their welfare system isn't burdened then the children will obviously be fed.

 

This is the most retarded right wing post/profile I've ever seen. (*)(*)(*)(*) off.