4 ms·

> There's a conflict between these. If your father got his wealth by driving out subsistence farmers at gunpoint, to what extent can you say it's nothing to do

by Sacho 9y ago

> There's a conflict between these. If your father got his wealth by driving out subsistence farmers at gunpoint, to what extent can you say it's nothing to do with you and that your wealth is a totally meritocratic inheritance? Because it wasn't your father, it was your...how many generations are there between us and the middle ages, again? This is a time jump in the article itself: > Historically, the British aristocracy’s defining feature was not a noble aspiration to serve the common weal but a desperate desire for self-advancement. They stole land under the pretence of piety in the early middle ages, they seized it by conquest, they expropriated it from the monasteries and they enclosed it for their private use under the pretence of efficiency. > ..... > And when democracy finally and rudely shunted them aside, they found new means of preserving their extravagant riches without the tedium of pretending they sought the common interest. Far from dying away, they remain very much alive. Moreover, the UK has been a democracy for quite some time now, and has had ample time to address inheritance law, and land ownership law. Like the article states: > That is no accident. British laws on land tenure, inheritance tax, corporate governance and discretionary trusts still make it easy to hide wealth from public view. Land is subsidised, and taxed more lightly than residential property. Unearned income bears less of a burden than earned income. The article claims that this is the secret to the power of the aristocracy. This power is given to them by laws, designed and voted in by MPs, who are in turn voted in by the people.

pjc50 9y ago
> the UK has been a democracy for quite some time now, and has had ample time to address inheritance law, and land ownership law This is true, and it hasn't had time to do it since first properly overruling the Lords in 1911. For some reason the newspapers owned by Lord Rothermere have agitated against it. The Scottish government has had much less time (since May 1999) to work on the subject and has got much further with land reform.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  And the tiny steps it has taken (e.g. suggesting it would be good to know who owns all the land) were denounced as being akin to Mugabe's actions in Zimbabwe by prime minister David Cameron's father-in-law who just happened to be a major land owner.
TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
It's easy to pretend to be a democracy when you own all the top schools, the popular press, the top universities, the civil service, the land, and all the core businesses. Democracy does not mean the peasants get to vote. Democracy means that the peasants get to set policy for their own benefit - which means that improving the opportunities, prospects, and living conditions of the majority of the population becomes a national goal, not an occasional failure of default policy. In a genuine democracy this happens with honest and open public debate and effective economic and political action, not with rhetoric, dishonesty, demagoguery, and misdirection.
dghf 9y ago
> Because it wasn't your father, it was your...how many generations are there between us and the middle ages, again? Enclosure of common land took place mostly in the 18th century. The Highland Clearances went on into the 19th.
crdoconnor 9y ago
>Because it wasn't your father, it was your...how many generations are there between us and the middle ages, again? This is a time jump in the article itself: Does it really matter if the Duke of Westminster got his land because his father fought a war or because his great^10 father fought a war? The 'moral argument' for society granting him billionaire status is still based entirely upon a past war and primogeniture. >Moreover, the UK has been a democracy for quite some time now Democracy isn't binary, it's a continuum. The media is largely owned by elites and until recently, the internal party political machinery of the two major parties were too. The Duke of Westminster's wealth wasn't stripped because British citizens really wanted him to keep it. He got to keep it because it wasn't seen as a fight worth starting to take it back.

by Sacho 9y ago

pjc50 9y ago

> the UK has been a democracy for quite some time now, and has had ample time to address inheritance law, and land ownership law This is true, and it hasn't had time to do it since first properly overruling the Lords in 1911. For some reason the newspapers owned by Lord Rothermere have agitated against it. The Scottish government has had much less time (since May 1999) to work on the subject and has got much further with land reform.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
And the tiny steps it has taken (e.g. suggesting it would be good to know who owns all the land) were denounced as being akin to Mugabe's actions in Zimbabwe by prime minister David Cameron's father-in-law who just happened to be a major land owner.

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago

It's easy to pretend to be a democracy when you own all the top schools, the popular press, the top universities, the civil service, the land, and all the core businesses. Democracy does not mean the peasants get to vote. Democracy means that the peasants get to set policy for their own benefit - which means that improving the opportunities, prospects, and living conditions of the majority of the population becomes a national goal, not an occasional failure of default policy. In a genuine democracy this happens with honest and open public debate and effective economic and political action, not with rhetoric, dishonesty, demagoguery, and misdirection.

dghf 9y ago

> Because it wasn't your father, it was your...how many generations are there between us and the middle ages, again? Enclosure of common land took place mostly in the 18th century. The Highland Clearances went on into the 19th.

crdoconnor 9y ago

>Because it wasn't your father, it was your...how many generations are there between us and the middle ages, again? This is a time jump in the article itself: Does it really matter if the Duke of Westminster got his land because his father fought a war or because his great^10 father fought a war? The 'moral argument' for society granting him billionaire status is still based entirely upon a past war and primogeniture. >Moreover, the UK has been a democracy for quite some time now Democracy isn't binary, it's a continuum. The media is largely owned by elites and until recently, the internal party political machinery of the two major parties were too. The Duke of Westminster's wealth wasn't stripped because British citizens really wanted him to keep it. He got to keep it because it wasn't seen as a fight worth starting to take it back.