7 ms·

Scott Adams is just talking about moving towards a visible aristocracy. These are the first baby steps. Soon the rich will have special privileges just like th

Scott Adams is just talking about moving towards a visible aristocracy. These are the first baby steps. Soon the rich will have special privileges just like the old days.

viraptor 16y ago
First steps - maybe, but does it really have to be full aristocracy? What if the ideas were just a really simple separate ideas not affecting others in more than 2% of some arbitrary measure for each of them? If we could offer packages that would be available to everyone but easy to buy at the same time, wouldn't it be good for everyone? For example you can pay $X for the "lexus lane", $X for another privilege, etc. - this way if someone actually wanted the privilege, but wasn't "really rich", they could still get it - not a total aristocracy and noone is forced to do anything. Private companies have been doing this for a really long time as small benefits. Think about airport/travel if you pay extra: you can get express checkin on the airport, no security queue, better comfort of travel (business class), better quality food, pick-up service on arrival, luggage transport taken care of, complete booking / planning from a third-party. I have never heard of people complaining about "visible aristocracy" when travelling though. Could the taxes work as a payment gateway for small luxury services? Meanwhile - it doesn't prevent anyone of us from getting the same. Want a better place on the plane? You can still get it without going for the whole "rich person package".
- forensic 16y ago
  >If we could offer packages that would be available to everyone but easy to buy at the same time, wouldn't it be good for everyone? For example you can pay $X for the "lexus lane", $X for another privilege, etc. - this way if someone actually wanted the privilege, but wasn't "really rich", they could still get it - not a total aristocracy and noone is forced to do anything. This is completely different because everyone would be eligible for the Lexus Lane. It's very likely that plenty of middle-class people would choose to pay for it. The defining characteristic of an aristocracy is special rights under the law for an elite class. All you're talking about is a service the government is offering with an aim to profit. Scott Adams on the other hand is talking about restricting to the top 2%. That's what makes it an aristocracy. I'm not saying a visible aristocracy codified in legislation is bad. Also I don't think your concept "full aristocracy" has meaning. All aristocracies exist on a sliding scale somewhere between "Lexus Lanes" and "slavery". Anyway personally I'm not really against a visible aristocracy. I actually think it probably makes sense to recognize power, because at least then there would be accountability. If Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros are unofficial Kings due to their enormous wealth, it's probably actually a good thing to make them official Kings because then they become accountable for getting results. Everyone would know who to blame - King Bill III. That puts all the incentives in order. I kind of suspect that our current elected officials are mostly just a trivial front-end for the true deciders who prefer to remain invisible because then they can't get lynched. Making them visible doesn't seem like much of a negative to me.
blahedo 16y ago
As I was reading the article, I actually had the thought that establishing a House of Lords would be in line with his "extra vote" power incentive. I don't think I'd advocate it (it's really another Bad Idea), but it's interesting to try to predict how the chips would fall on that one. :)
philwelch 16y ago
Aristocracy is different from this. Generally, aristocracy is both hereditary and disconnected from actual wealth. In the UK, JK Rowling, even though she is richer than the Queen, is not an aristocrat. She is, in fact, upper middle class. Someone who's born into the aristocracy, even if they're not especially wealthy, is an aristocrat.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Whether it's a hereditary or mercantile aristocracy, it's still an aristocracy. A hereditary aristocracy would be worse, certainly, but that doesn't mean a mercantile aristocracy would not be very, very bad.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  I wonder if we're headed towards a hereditary aristocracy as well, because of assortative mating. People tend to marry others in the same social class; rich marry rich, smart marry smart, and highly-educated marry highly-educated. And then they tend to pass on those advantages to their children. It doesn't take all that many generations before that becomes entrenched and it becomes impossible to jump from one class to another.
  - hackerblues 16y ago
    Do you have any reason to believe that this trend has not held throughout history?
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      I think it's held throughout history, but then again, throughout history most of the world has had some sort of aristocracy. The historical exception is the U.S. from 1945 to 1973, as well as perhaps a few other examples (maybe Scandinavia today, or the U.S. in the early/mid 1800s?). In that time period - really, no more than a generation - we saw a big leveling of income distribution, where people born to modest families suddenly had the creature comforts that a generation before had been reserved for the aristocracy. I think most people would agree that this is a generally desirable state for a society, so it might be worth asking what was different about those time periods that made them the historical exception?
sliverstorm 16y ago
On the other hand, a mild aristocracy does seem better than the nation crumbling under debt.
- forensic 16y ago
  I agree, but then again I've always been a monarchy-sympathizer.

Scott Adams is just talking about moving towards a visible aristocracy. These are the first baby steps. Soon the rich will have special privileges just like the old days.

viraptor 16y ago

First steps - maybe, but does it really have to be full aristocracy? What if the ideas were just a really simple separate ideas not affecting others in more than 2% of some arbitrary measure for each of them? If we could offer packages that would be available to everyone but easy to buy at the same time, wouldn't it be good for everyone? For example you can pay $X for the "lexus lane", $X for another privilege, etc. - this way if someone actually wanted the privilege, but wasn't "really rich", they could still get it - not a total aristocracy and noone is forced to do anything. Private companies have been doing this for a really long time as small benefits. Think about airport/travel if you pay extra: you can get express checkin on the airport, no security queue, better comfort of travel (business class), better quality food, pick-up service on arrival, luggage transport taken care of, complete booking / planning from a third-party. I have never heard of people complaining about "visible aristocracy" when travelling though. Could the taxes work as a payment gateway for small luxury services? Meanwhile - it doesn't prevent anyone of us from getting the same. Want a better place on the plane? You can still get it without going for the whole "rich person package".

forensic 16y ago
>If we could offer packages that would be available to everyone but easy to buy at the same time, wouldn't it be good for everyone? For example you can pay $X for the "lexus lane", $X for another privilege, etc. - this way if someone actually wanted the privilege, but wasn't "really rich", they could still get it - not a total aristocracy and noone is forced to do anything. This is completely different because everyone would be eligible for the Lexus Lane. It's very likely that plenty of middle-class people would choose to pay for it. The defining characteristic of an aristocracy is special rights under the law for an elite class. All you're talking about is a service the government is offering with an aim to profit. Scott Adams on the other hand is talking about restricting to the top 2%. That's what makes it an aristocracy. I'm not saying a visible aristocracy codified in legislation is bad. Also I don't think your concept "full aristocracy" has meaning. All aristocracies exist on a sliding scale somewhere between "Lexus Lanes" and "slavery". Anyway personally I'm not really against a visible aristocracy. I actually think it probably makes sense to recognize power, because at least then there would be accountability. If Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros are unofficial Kings due to their enormous wealth, it's probably actually a good thing to make them official Kings because then they become accountable for getting results. Everyone would know who to blame - King Bill III. That puts all the incentives in order. I kind of suspect that our current elected officials are mostly just a trivial front-end for the true deciders who prefer to remain invisible because then they can't get lynched. Making them visible doesn't seem like much of a negative to me.

blahedo 16y ago

As I was reading the article, I actually had the thought that establishing a House of Lords would be in line with his "extra vote" power incentive. I don't think I'd advocate it (it's really another Bad Idea), but it's interesting to try to predict how the chips would fall on that one. :)

philwelch 16y ago

Aristocracy is different from this. Generally, aristocracy is both hereditary and disconnected from actual wealth. In the UK, JK Rowling, even though she is richer than the Queen, is not an aristocrat. She is, in fact, upper middle class. Someone who's born into the aristocracy, even if they're not especially wealthy, is an aristocrat.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
Whether it's a hereditary or mercantile aristocracy, it's still an aristocracy. A hereditary aristocracy would be worse, certainly, but that doesn't mean a mercantile aristocracy would not be very, very bad.
nostrademons 16y ago
I wonder if we're headed towards a hereditary aristocracy as well, because of assortative mating. People tend to marry others in the same social class; rich marry rich, smart marry smart, and highly-educated marry highly-educated. And then they tend to pass on those advantages to their children. It doesn't take all that many generations before that becomes entrenched and it becomes impossible to jump from one class to another.
- hackerblues 16y ago
  Do you have any reason to believe that this trend has not held throughout history?
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    I think it's held throughout history, but then again, throughout history most of the world has had some sort of aristocracy. The historical exception is the U.S. from 1945 to 1973, as well as perhaps a few other examples (maybe Scandinavia today, or the U.S. in the early/mid 1800s?). In that time period - really, no more than a generation - we saw a big leveling of income distribution, where people born to modest families suddenly had the creature comforts that a generation before had been reserved for the aristocracy. I think most people would agree that this is a generally desirable state for a society, so it might be worth asking what was different about those time periods that made them the historical exception?

sliverstorm 16y ago

On the other hand, a mild aristocracy does seem better than the nation crumbling under debt.

forensic 16y ago
I agree, but then again I've always been a monarchy-sympathizer.