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

It looks to be that those who are wealthy got there by hard work and ambitions so if the country was a plutocracy it isn't such a bad thing. With the new laws in place anyone or group with alot of money can lobby even better than before for more favorable laws that benefit them and their biases. In a Democracy the people are suppose to determine what they like in their country but if the ruling class or wealthy determine those laws of the land then those who are lazy or don't work hard or make alot of money don't have the same voice in their country.

It doesn't look bad unless we think the poor deserve an equal voice but what have they done to contribute to the success of the country ? The wealthy create jobs, lead, innovate, and do alot of things that build the country from labors of the poor who choose to work and not receive welfare.

So in conclusion the question is should our country be led and be favorable to those with Money.?

 

An unrestricted plutocracy will lead to a feudal monarchy.

 

Well the decendents of hard workers will inherit the fruits of their parents labors if that is the case.

However it can prevented many wealthy people today say they will leave nothing to their children so to prevent a feudal monarchy a law that prohibits inheritance can keep it permanently unrestricted plutocracy which rewards hard work and earned wealth.

 

If those that got the money have only got it from doing total evil .no don't follow them....but ...yes it should be a concern for the wanting masses, who don't lie, cheat, steal, murder, make war and promote eugenics and genocide on a global level.

The powers of the world come from one focus, via its design and the one who was given this horror. Thats his problem, and he will pay.

But we are just people trying to live in vapor.


Let us, forgive, love and help. Our masters in the world want something else, our Creator, wants us to over come.

 

I don't think all wealthy people have exploited others for their wealth but most I believe have its hard to find one wealthy person who hasn't got rich from the toils and labors of the poor

 

Your first 15-20 words of the post are faulty. You are assuming the hard work and ambitions angle is how most got their wealth via these concepts. Today's corporate throat cutting wealth generation is certainly something other than hard work via the throat slashers. What happens when there's no one else to slash for profit? Out and out literal slavery? The problems with today's corporate methods of profiting should be painfully obvious.

 

I love it when rich people steal the fruits of my labor, they get to do this because they work harder than everyone else! Oh wait, I don't enjoy that and rich people don't work harder in proportion to their pay.

"but they make jobs, don't you like jobs?!"
Well, contrary to popular belief, it doesn't have to be this way. The fact that rich people steal the fruits of our labor and use that stolen work to get more workers - so that they can harvest more of our labor for their benifit - does not make them good.
Again, it doesn't have to be this way. Ever heard of the video games developer called Valve? They're one of the most successful developers, and they use workplace democracy.

 

This is the total opposite of a free market.

 

But the rich capitalists deserve some credit, they do work hard at exploiting other people for their gains. It may not be the same type of hard work that the peasant does but it is efficient work.

They pretty much work smart not hard and don't like it when the government takes a leadership role for the peasants instead of them because they legitimately won the race.

 

You are showing your true colors; you need to keep trolling as a "liberal", you Repub hack.

 

I have heard of Valve, too bad I don't like any of their games and I abhor steam.

 

As far as "harvesting labor" -- it's how the game works. It's worked that way since people first gave up nomadic lifestyles. But it goes both ways -- if you are a productive person, you'll be paid better than a nonproductive person. It's like saying because a farmer sells some of the grain, the grain suffers -- not exactly. If the grain would not feed him, he'd never plant the grains and the seeds would die. it's not good to kill off the wealthy portion of the economy, because they are the ones keeping the rest of the economy going.

 

Assuming they aren't getting wealthy via having enforced monopolies over resources. Geolibertarianism..

 

I disagree. It's the working portion of the economy that keeps it going -- and not just those working for a paycheck, either. People who work by staying home and taking care of children are providing a valuable service without which the economy suffers.

The wealthy portion doesn't keep the economy going, the wealthy portion just takes the most advantage of the economy. That's all you can really say for sure.

 

The question is: in what situations is having a legal force over resources beneficial to others, and in what situations is it not? When you consider the solution to that problem accurately..you get to geo-libertarianism IMO.

 

Well agreed someone has to be the farmer and this comes from the mindset of the individual, some people decide they want to be on the bottom while others decide they want to be on the top and work to get there.

The reason why so many people are on the bottom is because very few want to work to get to the top, it involves risk taking and more work than the common man would do at a 9-5 job.

There are two roles and the wealthy do play their role quite well but the only time they lose their argument is when it comes to inheritance and that is probably why Bill Gates and alot of other rich people openly say they will not leave anything for their children.

 

Bull@#$%. Look around. Do things seem like they're going swimmingly? That's not the fault of the working class. That's entirely the fault of suits.

 

yeah..that and the irresponsible rat-like reproduction of unproductive people. I'm not saying that the rat-like reproduction of unproductive people is any worse than the men in suits and their roles in the economy, but one pisses me off more than the other.

 

We are and always have been ruled By the wealthy. Does anyone here have enough money to run for president? How about for congress or the senate? It costs millions to do that. Wealth is where everything comes from other than our food. A wealthy man created a factory and made cars to sell to others so he could become super wealthy. Same with potato chips...do we need potato chips? No we don't and if we stop buying them they will soon be gone from the grocery store and replaced with something else that the wealthy man thought would sell so he could stay wealthy. All this hate the wealthy bs is just that...bs.

 

Mr. Madison......

 

The geo-libertarian thing sounds very sound morally and philosophically. It evens sounds practical. I'm a fan of the concept and can't wait to see how it works out once someone implements it somewhere. Some day.

 

Plutocracy is at least as lousy any other kind of -cracy. Even democracy has its problems, some obvious and some not. But in answer to the OP, I think we should stick with democracy.

 

Another brilliant Virginian.

 

are there ANY liberals on this forum, at all? or is this just a backup site for stormfront?

 

Welp. Your in the minority here. Considering they are the creators of several of the top selling video games of all time.