A political science question for fellow PF'ers: The Kings/Queens, or self government?

Yes, We Have an Aristocracy in America—and It’s Thriving
A new report shows how dynasties rake it in at everyone else’s expense.


Relative to other countries, financial success in the United States depends heavily on the circumstances of one’s birth. On average, a father in the United States passes on roughly one-half of his economic advantage or disadvantage to his son (Corak 2013). Among other high-income countries, the comparable figure is typically about one-third, and in several countries it is one-fifth.

There are even larger mobility barriers among some communities of color. Black men in particular have far less upward mobility and greater downward mobility than others, and to such a large extent that the current black–white income gap is not projected to change at all if these mobility dynamics persist (Chetty et al. 201.

But America’s aristocracy is thriving, thank you very much.


Among the highlights (some of which I have annotated):

• In 2020, America’s top 50 dynasties held $1.2 trillion in assets.
• The combined wealth of the 27 families that appeared both on the Forbes 400 list in 1983 and on Forbes Billion-Dollar Dynasties list in 2020, grew more than 1,000 percent during that period. That’s more than 10 times the growth rate of the typical American family’s wealth.
• Those same families saw a median increase in net worth, adjusted for inflation, of 904 percent. The five wealthiest ones saw their collective wealth grow by nearly 2,500 percent.

• Dynastic wealth is persistent. On the Forbes 2020 list, 16 of the top 20 families also appeared on the 1983 Forbes list. Only four were new.

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...tion-family-offices-institute-policy-studies/



The Growing Danger of Dynastic Wealth

Dynastic wealth runs counter to the ideal of America as a meritocracy. It makes a mockery of the notions that people earn what they’re worth in the market, and that economic gains should go to those who deserve them.

It puts economic power into the hands of a relative small number of people who have never worked, but whose investment decisions will have a significant effect on the nation’s future.

And it creates a self-perpetuating aristocracy that is antithetical to democracy.
https://robertreich.org/post/165403227390

 

The paradigm & epitome of a great leader, for the Romans, was never Julius Caesar or any of the other Emperors; it was the early military leader Tully, who was given full dictatorial powers, I think two or even three different times, in order to defend Rome from attack; each time, after the danger had passed, he willingly surrendered his title and powers.

Strangely, although I know I had read about Tully in a physical encyclopedia, in the past (when living in upstate New York, where many towns have names from antiquity-- Rome, Utica, Syracuse, etc.-- and I'd been curious about a bar/restaurant, called Tully's [which might also have been the name for that particular area or suburb, of Syracuse]), I just now struck out, online, trying to find out anything about him, to link. Different personages, like Cicero, came up, instead. Weird. And sad.

 

History degree here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla

 

Talking as someone living within a parliamentary government - it does not affect our lives overmuch. The Queen is a nice old dear but she lives in England. We get to part of the “Commonwealth” but all that means is we get to trounce England and Canada in the Commonwealth Games

 

Thanks for trying, but that isn't who I was thinking of. It was someone much earlier than Sulla. I could have sworn it was Tully. But it wasn't anyone who ever seized power by force. In fact, I recall that on one or two occasions, he was called out of retirement, in order to defend the city (as the dictator, as I'd said). And when he was done, both times, he went back into retirement.

I notice there is a mythological figure, who is nevertheless believed to have been an actual figure, named Tullus Hostilius, who again though, does not seem to fit the details, I'd read. I feel like he would have been later than the mythological period, but long before Sulla & Julius Caesar.

 

Some people always feel betrayed- and betrayal of the people is something always in existence in politics to some degree. We have never elected perfect people, but at times- we get foolish and elect the worst of them all in return for promises they cannot and will not keep. It's one thing to hire the wrong person. It's another to leave them in place and suffer the damage they do once the mistake is obvious.

When?
In the next few months.

 

Thanks, keep me informed if you find it.

Dictator under Roman's was common, it was generally given to someone for a period of time, months generally, with power of king

 

Well, I was able to at least find a (not especially short) list of Roman "dictators," which will take me some time to get through, with no guarantee that I will see the correct person's history detailed in such a way, that I will recognize it as the same characterization I'd read, nearly 20 years ago. None of the names on the list, BTW, are " Tully, " so this was perhaps some kind of nickname?

Anyway, it was a person more in line, at any rate, with the stature of someone like this former Roman leader/dictator:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Manlius_Imperiosus_Torquatus

Again, the details I'd formerly seen stressed, were not the ones stressed here, so I couldn't say if there was any chance that this could be the person, to whom I'd earlier referred. I only chose this name, to start, because Manlius is also the name of a town in upstate NY, near Syracuse.

Interesting story, nevertheless, about this leader. He had been co-leader of the army, at one point, and they had decided to reinstate a strict rule, that anyone deserting their post, would be executed. His son, however, saw an opportunity for making a name for himself, by leaving his post, to lead a couple of victorious raids on the enemy. When he returned, in triumph, his father (Manlius) scolded him in front of all the troops, before handing him over to the executioner.

Never a dull moment in, at least the written accounts of, Roman history.

 

perhaps this will help?

List of Roman dictators - Wikipedia

perhaps the story is in will durant's " caesar and christ" which covers the early republic (and the etruscans. )

 

Thanks, I appreciate your attempt to assist, but I found that same list, myself, just a little bit before you posted it:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...self-government.603071/page-4#post-1073685104

What is it they say, about great minds?

 

No true "master," can be voted out of office.

The answer, to which you are oblivious, is that giving the vote to the widest reasonable range of citizens, obviously stands the best chance of attaining what those citizens deem to be, "the greatest good," for the greatest of their number.

The glaring defect in your viewpoint, is the belief that any one group, would decide more wisely than the collective population. As the recent protests in Iran, largely of its younger citizens-- just as it was the major constituent of our own Civil Rights Movement-- demonstrates, important changes, beneficial (or even crucial) to society, are most likely to come from the young. I would assume that it is the younger generation of Russians, as well, who predominantly make up the base of protesters against Putin's ruinous war in Ukraine, as well as against his corruptly run Kleptocracy. This does not mean, obviously, that in all matters, it is the opinion of the young, which is best for society to follow. But sometimes, it is.

Every group, among which you suggest there could be found some advantage, in making voting rights exclusive to them, has its own, particular concerns, which override the overall good, for the greatest number in society, not included in ones own group. That is the seed, which germinated in American democracy: that allowing all to be heard, in public debate, will lead the citizenry to come to the best, and most equitable, decisions, overall.

Everyone who is affected by the decisions of their government, and must adhere to its laws, already has "skin in the game."

The concept which apparently eludes you, is the idea that everyone should be entitled to have a say, in any government which rules them. Therefore, the criterion is only, will the laws these representatives write, apply to me, will the decisions of this political leadership, affect me? If the answer is yes, then any citizen, deserves to have a voice in the process, without need of clearing further bars.

This basic concept, with which you and others clearly disagree, is at the heart of the American ideal, for which our forefathers fought and died: democratically elected representation. That is why it is a cause for concern, and a fair statement, when someone comments on the upsurge in the autocratic, or non- democratic, impulse, among members specifically, of the Republican Party (and a complete sham, when one turns this around to accuse Democrats of being the true anti- democratic autocrats).

 

Wow, this is a conversation from weeks ago and it must have really been sticking in your craw. That's interesting in and of itself, but let's take your statement at face value. Is that really true? Do you think that the widest range of citizens voting will actually produce "the greatest good" for the greatest number?

I'm not sure that's true. It doesn't mean it's NOT true, but I don't think that's been proven. The current Democrat Progressive extremists think that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Now that would certainly certainly give the vote to an even wider range of citizens, but would we get the greatest good out of that? Both by observing teenagers and having previously been one, I would say no, we would, if anything, get worse governance. Certainly allowing every insane person in every asylum in the country and every murderer and rapist serving prison time would widen the range of voting citizens, but please explain how that would make voting and it's outcomes better?

American Democracy was a Republic which limited the voting franchise to people they thought actually had a vested interest in the system they were voting to run, that's why property ownership was often a requirement; you're not likely to want to "burn it all down" if you are one of those who would be burned.

I'm not sure why you think the current Iran upheaval is an example of what you are talking about. The Islamic Republic has had these before and they tend to run their course after enough people are jailed. That doesn't really say anything about democracy, which Iran clearly isn't. If you want a democratic example, use a democratic example, like Venezuela. The voters were swept up in Chavismo, and voted for a charismatic socialist demagogue that has in every measure you can think of, made life in that country worse for everyone, including the poor who majority voted for it. That's democracy in action.

If your goal is simply the "widest reasonable range of citizens" voting, that doesn't necessarily mean you are going to get the greatest good for the greatest number. Sometimes you get the opposite of that, like in Venezuela or Zimbabwe.

So I assume you support the outcome of the Italian elections since the people voted and that's what they wanted?

 

And that you begin your reply, with something utterly irrelevant to the topic, is also telling-- and it is not an encouraging sign, for what is to come.

Yes, for anyone who believes in the precepts of DEMOCRACY, this is true. The alternative thought, that people who are not facing one's own challenges, will be a better source to rely on, for solutions, than those living with the circumstances, is patently illogical.

If you appreciate your right to vote, that being a careful reader is not a required skill, in order to exercise that right, is something for which you should be thankful. The purpose of my describing the desirable range of voters, allowed to participate in the process, as not just "the widest," but with the additional caveat of "reasonable," was to address just such ridiculous exaggerations, as this. It is completely reasonable, to limit voting to ADULTS. This is not the general designation, of 16 year olds. They are still given different treatment, under the law, and are even considered their parents' responsibility, until they are 18. Hence, limiting voting to adults, is in no way the same as restricting it to only land owners (or military personnel, & veterans).

And you end, as you began, with a lot of smoke and commotion, but no fire. My point about the younger generation, was that they often lead the (right) way, for society. This fact applies, regardless of the type of government. I did notice, though, you did not address my citing of the youth role, in the American CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. The older generation, generally speaking, is wiser, but is also more set in its ways, and averse to change, even when it is called for. That is the benefit of allowing all (adult) citizens to contribute their perspectives, through electing representatives.

That the majority makes mistakes, is a moot point, unless you are contending there is any group of voters, which is always right(?). Are you unaware of the long track record of property owners, supporting tyrannical governments which, nevertheless, protected their own interests, and position in society?

As far as "supporting the outcome of the Italian elections," though it may surprise you to hear that I do not keep myself intimately appraised of Italian politics, I of course acknowledge Italian voters' right, to elect whomsoever they choose, for their own governance. I'd felt the same way, when Trump was elected-- there is no reason to presume, as you do, this means that I must concur with the decision.

 

So to summarize, you believe that the widest range in citizens voting will produce the greatest good for the greatest number.

OK I think the historical record on that is rather spotty, but it's OK to disagree.

 

I appreciate your, finally, both grasping the core of my straightforward argument, and fairly summarizing it.


EDIT: Just don't go ruining that, by trying to maintain this would mean I must support forcing people to vote. If we are going to get nitpicky, I would have wanted you to include the words, "who care to participate."

*P.S.-- The records on both landowner voting, and military rule, are also very "spotty," at best.

 

Mandated voting is not all bad. The government is then obligated to the following

1. making voting accessible to all which means sometimes hiring aircraft to fly to remote communities to allow for postal votes
2. Very very accurate voting rolls
3. Bloody hard to scam the system
4. Ballot papers have to be simple and easy
5. Fewer obligations to vote
6 Voting is on a Saturday

 

Could you clarify the meaning of #5, "fewer obligations to vote," within a system in which voting is "mandated?"

 

We only vote about once a year on average and then ONLY for local, state or federal councillors, senators and members of parliament. No local dog catchers or “elected officials”. Interestingly there has never been a serious discussion about making it voluntary- I guess that is because most Aussies realise that if we did that no bastard would turn up

 

That's funny. Aussies don't want to vote, but know that they should vote, so they let their elected government make them do it.

 

Nah! We are just realistic when it comes to who and what we are - mind you the other outcome is that you don’t have to spend money to simply incentivise people to vote - that also makes us possibly one of the most “swinging” electorates anywhere. People decide on the day and often ten seconds before they mark the paper. Because it is “preferential voting” we often have anywhere from two to ten people to vote for so I start with the person I dislike most and work back

That can end up being a bit depressing

 

Any guesses as to how high the average Aussie's blood alcohol level "swings," as they enter the polls?

 

Most people vote in the morning, so I'm guessing not much.

 

Polls close 7pm sooooo……..



Oh! And we use the old fashioned lead pencils to mark the ballot. Usually though about 1/3 normal length which gives an indication of how tight arse the Aus govt is

 

Adam Smith used the word 'education' 80 times in Wealth of Nations. He used 'Invisible Hand' one time.

If you watch a few dozen videos about Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations on YouTube what will you find out about what Smith said about education?

What good is democracy if the people in power make sure the commoners don't know which way is up? Not to imply that the aristocrats will run things any better. But the commoners are pawns.

Was Brexit more or less idiotic than the Trump presidential race? Which is more catastrophic?

 

So does refusing educational vouchers for those who want to send their children to private school so that you can force them into your indoctrination machine count?