6 ms·

Since ancient history the rich have gotten away with doing as they please, and they always will. The real culprit is democracy's false promise that it can do an

by jrcii 12y ago

Since ancient history the rich have gotten away with doing as they please, and they always will. The real culprit is democracy's false promise that it can do anything to change this. Ultimately the masses will only take action if food or shelter is at risk.

Igglyboo 12y ago
Yep, inequality sucks in the US but it's still one of the best places to live in the world. Why risk your middle class lifestyle by rioting and protesting when you have enough to get by? Until we become a despot I don't see things changing very much.
- josho 12y ago
  A 2014 UN study on the happiest populations* doesn't even include the US in the top 10 (it scored #17). All of the countries in the list have some form of a mixed economy (ie. not full on socialism, but a much stronger social support system in place than the US). So, there isn't even that much experimentation required to get a better system in the US. Rather, I'd say American's have thoroughly been indoctrinated against social support constructs that you only have yourselves to blame (you only need to look at how underfunded the public school systems, police, college are). *http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-visit/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-v...
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    I'm not arguing against the idea of mixed economies, but I don't find the argument that a bunch of countries produce happy citizens and the same countries have mixed economies very compelling. For instance, you don't mention the inverse. How do mixed economies due on the unhappiness scale? Is there some bare standard of mixed economy (for instance the US does have a mixed economy with a social support system at many levels)? Is there something else that is more related than their economic model for happiness? I personally look at that data set and find it telling that those are all small countries by population size, wealthy and have lots of mineral resources per capita. For instance, are people in Iceland more happy than people in Corpus Cristi, Tx (which gets routinely rated as a happy US city and is bigger than Iceland).
    - josho 12y ago
      You are right, my conclusion was linking happiness with mixed economies, that was not from the report--the link is intuitively obvious to me, but likely hard to prove. I've seen a study in the past showing the relationship between happiness and financial income. It showed that happiness largely peaked when you had enough money to support your basic needs and do a few extra fun things. Any additional income didn't do much to help people feel happier. So, my conclusion based on that was that a mixed economy where everyone's basic needs are largely met seems like a good way to keep it's population basically happy. The study seemed to validate that somewhat. In contrast in the US where the growing bottom percent of the population faces stress over basic needs, and many in the middle class are one health care diagnosis away from bankruptcy seemed like a good indicator that the current American economic system is not ideal, and has a clear direction that it could take to solve these issues.
  - xrange 12y ago
    From the looks of it, it seems like the amount of racial homogeneity appears to be well correlated to the happiness quotient. Maybe that is the bigger factor in happiness. And a more homogeneous society might be one that tolerates more socialism. Another interesting question is what is cause and what is effect here. Does the amount of happiness of a society determine what kind of economic structures the members prefer? Or does the nature of the economic structures drive happiness? And how close are they coupled? And what makes happiness the right metric to optimize for, compared to say contentedness, or equality? And in what sense are US schools underfunded? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-globa...
    - josho 12y ago
      If you look at the numbers closely we see that 12% less is put into the public system in the US than the OECD average. This pattern is true of most things in America, you put more dollars into health care and education than other countries, but most of that ends up in private systems. So, if you have money you get the best education or healthcare in the world. If, you however you don't fit into that bucket what you get is far less. My experience from those that I know in the US (middle class) either have their children in private schools, or they choose where to live based on which neighbourhoods have a good public school. This behaviour, as far as I am aware, is unheard of in those countries in the top 10. Regarding the questions you raise, some can be answered if you follow the link to the original report. What bothers me the most about your response is to completely discount a well researched report because it doesn't answer all possible questions. Sure, maybe race plays a role. But, if you want to answer that you need to ask different questions than this report did. What you need to do is look at the report as a whole and reflect on it. Sure the US may have the greatest GDP, but in so many other factors lags behind other countries, is optimizing for financial return really what we as a nation need to strive for?--That is the takeaway that you should contemplate, not nitpicking over answers that the report didn't set out to address.
      - xrange 12y ago
        I guess I'm old-school. Asking questions doesn't discount anything. If people can't ask questions, it seems like conversations become boring one-sided monologues. Your mileage apparently varies.
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  The folks who think that the US is one of the best places to live in the world are usually folks who've never stepped outside of the US. I've lived in several US states, a variety of European and Asian countries, and have travelled broadly - and the US, I put on a par with post-soviet Russia in terms of standards of living - and in terms of cultural attitudes. It's amazing how similar the two are, to someone external to both worlds.
  - Igglyboo 12y ago
    Really depends on where you live I guess, the US is huge compared to european countries. I live in a pretty progressive area in the Midwest and have a pretty high standard of living.
  - pyre 12y ago
    The US is a big place and it really depends on the regions that you lived in. Much like you can't judge all of China based on Beijing or Shanghai. For example, there are regions in China that are predominantly Muslim. That said, it also depends on what you view as downsides to living in a place. For example, South Korean isn't considered backwards by any means, but you do have mandatory military service, which the US does not have (to the point that even a Korean born & raised in another country might be forced into service when going back to Korea to visit relatives).
    - madaxe_again 12y ago
      In the US, I lived in (in descending order of time spent there) Illinois, Chicago and rural. Virginia, several locations. New Jersey. New York. LA, Norcal. Ohio New Mexico Which I'll grant isn't "everywhere", but is a decent sample of East, West, Midwest, and various shades such as "mountain man" and "rust belt" between. Fully aware, I've been to Xi'an and parts of China most folks don't even know exist - driving across large swathes of the planet is one of my favourite hobbies. Driving west to east across Russia is great, as you barely notice the change as you go, as it's HUGE, but you couldn't mistake, say, Ulan Ude for Novosibirsk in a million years. Conscription is a potential downside, yes, but I look more at things like "do the people seem fundamentally happy, or neurotic and really messed up?". In the US and Russia, the latter applies. In the US, they all take prescription meds. In Russia, they drink until they don't care any more. Not symptoms of healthy, happy societies. I don't know where I actually would say is "better" - most of the places I've been to where I've gone "this is nice" have been devoid of humans. We have a knack for turning things to shit.
- acjohnson55 12y ago
  Middle class people generally aren't risking their status by rioting. I'd have to imagine that the sort of people firebombing random businesses and police cars probably don't feel like they have that much at stake. As far as risking status by protesting, by that logic, no one should have boycotted segregated institutions. "Separate and unequal, but adequate", would have been the mantra.
IgorPartola 12y ago
"Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is about eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried." ~ Robert A. Heinlein
- JamesArgo 12y ago
  If this means anything, it means we should experiment with newer forms of government, not be happy with the best of a bad lot.
  - random8799 12y ago
    How about the intelligent management of the earth's resources? For example, instead of humans wearing gold to impress each-other, we instead use gold for its properties. look into: (Cybernetic) Resource-based Economic Model. It is the most efficient and effective use of resources with human concern that I am aware of... anyone with other ideas, I am open to listen and digest. The developer "class" will be around to automate almost all job functionality as time continues. In this unique economic and functional opportunity that we have, what will we do with the time we have left? Will we create a world designed to support and nurture all human beings to grow their full potential, or will we be short-sighted and manipulative for momentary gain? Either way, I have no expectations from this current culture.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      > How about the intelligent management of the earth's resources? I would agree with an AI managing the world's resources; we have proven ourselves unable to do so in an intelligent manner.
    - jqm 12y ago
      Bingo. I believe you have nailed it. This is the eventual and (I believe) inevitable answer. Open the code. Let anyone see how it functions if they care to take the time. Base it on real math. Real statistics. Remove the political sound bites from governance. Factors the "market" doesn't take into account should be extrapolated and accounted for. What is the cost of a barrel of oil really? What about when it ruins a fishery or aquifer and heats up the planet? What about the fact it is a resource that is not renewable? So we are passing a burden to future generations in that they don't have the resource anymore. Not to mention a possibly ruined fishery. The market doesn't care about these things, and thus we get problem after problem (not to mention wars). Governance of resources by nice hair and teeth and political soundbite and cronyism is ultimately a stupid way to do things and I can't imagine it will win the evolutionary battle of systems.
rasz_pl 12y ago
Well, except that one time in France.
- seren 12y ago
  At least one of the trigger was food shortage, or the fear of food shortage. The first riots were "bread riots". Hence the infamous apocryphal quote by Marie Anotoinette "If they can't have bread, let them eat cake". Obviously, the only time a riot become a revolution is when you have a perfect storm of food shortage, social inequality, increased literacy, etc.
cmsmith 12y ago
This attitude is exactly what they are counting on - 80% of the people being oblivious to their crimes and 20% being upset but convinced nothing can be done. There have certainly been times when populist outrage has led to change or consequences for those at the top (in the US, try the 1890s, 1930s, 1960s, late 1980s).
- Swizec 12y ago
  The problem with populist outrage is that it only changes things when an ambitious leader shows up and takes advantage of the outrage for their own personal gain (dethroning the current ruler and putting themselves there). Let's face it, humans need somebody to be on top. We don't know how to function otherwise. At least not for very long.
  - duairc 12y ago
    > Let's face it, humans need somebody to be on top. We don't know how to function otherwise. At least not for very long. What's your basis for saying this? Do you have any way of verifying this claim?
    - Swizec 12y ago
      > What's your basis for saying this? Do you have any way of verifying this claim? A leader always emerges. If you know of a counter-example, I'd love to hear it. But even in the smallest experiments I've run (group of friends trying to agree on where to have dinner), a leader always emerges and then consensus is reached.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - crpatino 12y ago
      Have you ever heard the term "social primate"? If not, or if you do not accept that human beings belong into that category, there is not much of a discussion to be had.
  - 12y ago
AndrewKemendo 12y ago
Yes this a million times. The only change that I could see happening is if basic needs are met for all people across the board - such that food and shelter are never at risk.
xrange 12y ago
Where does one find out what the promises of democracy are?
arca_vorago 12y ago
"The real culprit is democracy's false promise that it can do anything to change this. Ultimately the masses will only take action if food or shelter is at risk." Democratic Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. The entire existence of the American System was against the European oligarchy and for the establishment of American aristocracy (the founding brothers weren't saints, they were monied land-owning aristocrats). The real problem is that the oligarchs in the City of London have continually subverted the American System and entangled us abroad (triple entente, anyone?), and have corrupted all our branches of government. The American Constitution, if we actually followed it, provides mechanisms to deal with problems such as this. Namely, the idea of equality under the law. Ah, but the justice system is corrupt to, up to and including SCOTUS. Please stop conflating democracy with our Constitutional Republic, and also stop vilifying a system that is not in it's proper state, eg, you essentially imply that democracy is a fad because it's been shown to not work, when if fact it has worked in some cases so well that it became a threat to the oligarchs and they actively subverted it. Our problem is the oligarchs, not the system itself.
- fineIllregister 12y ago
  The point of the branches is to prevent corruption. Saying “if we actually followed it” is like saying cyanide would be healthy “if it wasn't lethal.” There is no intrinsic, “proper state” of a constitutional republic. If the Constitution did not permit the current situation, then it did not prevent it. Thus it has failed.
  - arca_vorago 12y ago
    "If the Constitution did not permit the current situation, then it did not prevent it. Thus it has failed." This will be the justification used to dismantle the idea of American national sovereignty then. I see your point and am trying very hard to understand, but I always understood that the constitution was something that needed protection, hence the various oaths of office, not that the constitution was expected to simply stand on it's own structure. It was designed such that the various branches of power would cancel each other out. The bankers realized they could buy all the branches, including the fourth estate, and I think it is the people who are sworn to defend the constitution who have failed, not the constitution itself. Your outlook scares me that it may be more widespread than I previously realized.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Since ancient history the rich have gotten away with doing as they please, and they always will. That's fundamentally what defines being rich. "Wealth" is just another word for "power", and "rich" just means possessed of substantially more wealth than average. > The real culprit is democracy's false promise that it can do anything to change this. Democracy seeks to redistribute some elements of power more equally, and is not completely unsuccessful in so doing in many real world systems. It does something to change the degree to which the rich get away with what they want -- simply by reducing the degree to which they are really rich. OTOH, its offset often in real democratic politico-economic systems by other elements of the system -- e.g., capitalism -- which have the exact opposite effect.
sitkack 12y ago
Which is why we need an anti-rich society. Eat the 1% and redistribute their wealth. I can only hope that a distributed post scarcity society and technology base can render their money worthless.

by jrcii 12y ago

Igglyboo 12y ago

Yep, inequality sucks in the US but it's still one of the best places to live in the world. Why risk your middle class lifestyle by rioting and protesting when you have enough to get by? Until we become a despot I don't see things changing very much.

josho 12y ago
A 2014 UN study on the happiest populations* doesn't even include the US in the top 10 (it scored #17). All of the countries in the list have some form of a mixed economy (ie. not full on socialism, but a much stronger social support system in place than the US). So, there isn't even that much experimentation required to get a better system in the US. Rather, I'd say American's have thoroughly been indoctrinated against social support constructs that you only have yourselves to blame (you only need to look at how underfunded the public school systems, police, college are). *http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-visit/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-v...
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  I'm not arguing against the idea of mixed economies, but I don't find the argument that a bunch of countries produce happy citizens and the same countries have mixed economies very compelling. For instance, you don't mention the inverse. How do mixed economies due on the unhappiness scale? Is there some bare standard of mixed economy (for instance the US does have a mixed economy with a social support system at many levels)? Is there something else that is more related than their economic model for happiness? I personally look at that data set and find it telling that those are all small countries by population size, wealthy and have lots of mineral resources per capita. For instance, are people in Iceland more happy than people in Corpus Cristi, Tx (which gets routinely rated as a happy US city and is bigger than Iceland).
  - josho 12y ago
    You are right, my conclusion was linking happiness with mixed economies, that was not from the report--the link is intuitively obvious to me, but likely hard to prove. I've seen a study in the past showing the relationship between happiness and financial income. It showed that happiness largely peaked when you had enough money to support your basic needs and do a few extra fun things. Any additional income didn't do much to help people feel happier. So, my conclusion based on that was that a mixed economy where everyone's basic needs are largely met seems like a good way to keep it's population basically happy. The study seemed to validate that somewhat. In contrast in the US where the growing bottom percent of the population faces stress over basic needs, and many in the middle class are one health care diagnosis away from bankruptcy seemed like a good indicator that the current American economic system is not ideal, and has a clear direction that it could take to solve these issues.
- xrange 12y ago
  From the looks of it, it seems like the amount of racial homogeneity appears to be well correlated to the happiness quotient. Maybe that is the bigger factor in happiness. And a more homogeneous society might be one that tolerates more socialism. Another interesting question is what is cause and what is effect here. Does the amount of happiness of a society determine what kind of economic structures the members prefer? Or does the nature of the economic structures drive happiness? And how close are they coupled? And what makes happiness the right metric to optimize for, compared to say contentedness, or equality? And in what sense are US schools underfunded? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-globa...
  - josho 12y ago
    If you look at the numbers closely we see that 12% less is put into the public system in the US than the OECD average. This pattern is true of most things in America, you put more dollars into health care and education than other countries, but most of that ends up in private systems. So, if you have money you get the best education or healthcare in the world. If, you however you don't fit into that bucket what you get is far less. My experience from those that I know in the US (middle class) either have their children in private schools, or they choose where to live based on which neighbourhoods have a good public school. This behaviour, as far as I am aware, is unheard of in those countries in the top 10. Regarding the questions you raise, some can be answered if you follow the link to the original report. What bothers me the most about your response is to completely discount a well researched report because it doesn't answer all possible questions. Sure, maybe race plays a role. But, if you want to answer that you need to ask different questions than this report did. What you need to do is look at the report as a whole and reflect on it. Sure the US may have the greatest GDP, but in so many other factors lags behind other countries, is optimizing for financial return really what we as a nation need to strive for?--That is the takeaway that you should contemplate, not nitpicking over answers that the report didn't set out to address.
    - xrange 12y ago
      I guess I'm old-school. Asking questions doesn't discount anything. If people can't ask questions, it seems like conversations become boring one-sided monologues. Your mileage apparently varies.
madaxe_again 12y ago
The folks who think that the US is one of the best places to live in the world are usually folks who've never stepped outside of the US. I've lived in several US states, a variety of European and Asian countries, and have travelled broadly - and the US, I put on a par with post-soviet Russia in terms of standards of living - and in terms of cultural attitudes. It's amazing how similar the two are, to someone external to both worlds.
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  Really depends on where you live I guess, the US is huge compared to european countries. I live in a pretty progressive area in the Midwest and have a pretty high standard of living.
- pyre 12y ago
  The US is a big place and it really depends on the regions that you lived in. Much like you can't judge all of China based on Beijing or Shanghai. For example, there are regions in China that are predominantly Muslim. That said, it also depends on what you view as downsides to living in a place. For example, South Korean isn't considered backwards by any means, but you do have mandatory military service, which the US does not have (to the point that even a Korean born & raised in another country might be forced into service when going back to Korea to visit relatives).
  - madaxe_again 12y ago
    In the US, I lived in (in descending order of time spent there) Illinois, Chicago and rural. Virginia, several locations. New Jersey. New York. LA, Norcal. Ohio New Mexico Which I'll grant isn't "everywhere", but is a decent sample of East, West, Midwest, and various shades such as "mountain man" and "rust belt" between. Fully aware, I've been to Xi'an and parts of China most folks don't even know exist - driving across large swathes of the planet is one of my favourite hobbies. Driving west to east across Russia is great, as you barely notice the change as you go, as it's HUGE, but you couldn't mistake, say, Ulan Ude for Novosibirsk in a million years. Conscription is a potential downside, yes, but I look more at things like "do the people seem fundamentally happy, or neurotic and really messed up?". In the US and Russia, the latter applies. In the US, they all take prescription meds. In Russia, they drink until they don't care any more. Not symptoms of healthy, happy societies. I don't know where I actually would say is "better" - most of the places I've been to where I've gone "this is nice" have been devoid of humans. We have a knack for turning things to shit.
acjohnson55 12y ago
Middle class people generally aren't risking their status by rioting. I'd have to imagine that the sort of people firebombing random businesses and police cars probably don't feel like they have that much at stake. As far as risking status by protesting, by that logic, no one should have boycotted segregated institutions. "Separate and unequal, but adequate", would have been the mantra.

IgorPartola 12y ago

"Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is about eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried." ~ Robert A. Heinlein

JamesArgo 12y ago
If this means anything, it means we should experiment with newer forms of government, not be happy with the best of a bad lot.
- random8799 12y ago
  How about the intelligent management of the earth's resources? For example, instead of humans wearing gold to impress each-other, we instead use gold for its properties. look into: (Cybernetic) Resource-based Economic Model. It is the most efficient and effective use of resources with human concern that I am aware of... anyone with other ideas, I am open to listen and digest. The developer "class" will be around to automate almost all job functionality as time continues. In this unique economic and functional opportunity that we have, what will we do with the time we have left? Will we create a world designed to support and nurture all human beings to grow their full potential, or will we be short-sighted and manipulative for momentary gain? Either way, I have no expectations from this current culture.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > How about the intelligent management of the earth's resources? I would agree with an AI managing the world's resources; we have proven ourselves unable to do so in an intelligent manner.
  - jqm 12y ago
    Bingo. I believe you have nailed it. This is the eventual and (I believe) inevitable answer. Open the code. Let anyone see how it functions if they care to take the time. Base it on real math. Real statistics. Remove the political sound bites from governance. Factors the "market" doesn't take into account should be extrapolated and accounted for. What is the cost of a barrel of oil really? What about when it ruins a fishery or aquifer and heats up the planet? What about the fact it is a resource that is not renewable? So we are passing a burden to future generations in that they don't have the resource anymore. Not to mention a possibly ruined fishery. The market doesn't care about these things, and thus we get problem after problem (not to mention wars). Governance of resources by nice hair and teeth and political soundbite and cronyism is ultimately a stupid way to do things and I can't imagine it will win the evolutionary battle of systems.

rasz_pl 12y ago

Well, except that one time in France.

seren 12y ago
At least one of the trigger was food shortage, or the fear of food shortage. The first riots were "bread riots". Hence the infamous apocryphal quote by Marie Anotoinette "If they can't have bread, let them eat cake". Obviously, the only time a riot become a revolution is when you have a perfect storm of food shortage, social inequality, increased literacy, etc.

cmsmith 12y ago

This attitude is exactly what they are counting on - 80% of the people being oblivious to their crimes and 20% being upset but convinced nothing can be done. There have certainly been times when populist outrage has led to change or consequences for those at the top (in the US, try the 1890s, 1930s, 1960s, late 1980s).

Swizec 12y ago
The problem with populist outrage is that it only changes things when an ambitious leader shows up and takes advantage of the outrage for their own personal gain (dethroning the current ruler and putting themselves there). Let's face it, humans need somebody to be on top. We don't know how to function otherwise. At least not for very long.
- duairc 12y ago
  > Let's face it, humans need somebody to be on top. We don't know how to function otherwise. At least not for very long. What's your basis for saying this? Do you have any way of verifying this claim?
  - Swizec 12y ago
    > What's your basis for saying this? Do you have any way of verifying this claim? A leader always emerges. If you know of a counter-example, I'd love to hear it. But even in the smallest experiments I've run (group of friends trying to agree on where to have dinner), a leader always emerges and then consensus is reached.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - crpatino 12y ago
    Have you ever heard the term "social primate"? If not, or if you do not accept that human beings belong into that category, there is not much of a discussion to be had.
- 12y ago

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

Yes this a million times. The only change that I could see happening is if basic needs are met for all people across the board - such that food and shelter are never at risk.

xrange 12y ago

Where does one find out what the promises of democracy are?

arca_vorago 12y ago

"The real culprit is democracy's false promise that it can do anything to change this. Ultimately the masses will only take action if food or shelter is at risk." Democratic Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. The entire existence of the American System was against the European oligarchy and for the establishment of American aristocracy (the founding brothers weren't saints, they were monied land-owning aristocrats). The real problem is that the oligarchs in the City of London have continually subverted the American System and entangled us abroad (triple entente, anyone?), and have corrupted all our branches of government. The American Constitution, if we actually followed it, provides mechanisms to deal with problems such as this. Namely, the idea of equality under the law. Ah, but the justice system is corrupt to, up to and including SCOTUS. Please stop conflating democracy with our Constitutional Republic, and also stop vilifying a system that is not in it's proper state, eg, you essentially imply that democracy is a fad because it's been shown to not work, when if fact it has worked in some cases so well that it became a threat to the oligarchs and they actively subverted it. Our problem is the oligarchs, not the system itself.

fineIllregister 12y ago
The point of the branches is to prevent corruption. Saying “if we actually followed it” is like saying cyanide would be healthy “if it wasn't lethal.” There is no intrinsic, “proper state” of a constitutional republic. If the Constitution did not permit the current situation, then it did not prevent it. Thus it has failed.
- arca_vorago 12y ago
  "If the Constitution did not permit the current situation, then it did not prevent it. Thus it has failed." This will be the justification used to dismantle the idea of American national sovereignty then. I see your point and am trying very hard to understand, but I always understood that the constitution was something that needed protection, hence the various oaths of office, not that the constitution was expected to simply stand on it's own structure. It was designed such that the various branches of power would cancel each other out. The bankers realized they could buy all the branches, including the fourth estate, and I think it is the people who are sworn to defend the constitution who have failed, not the constitution itself. Your outlook scares me that it may be more widespread than I previously realized.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Since ancient history the rich have gotten away with doing as they please, and they always will. That's fundamentally what defines being rich. "Wealth" is just another word for "power", and "rich" just means possessed of substantially more wealth than average. > The real culprit is democracy's false promise that it can do anything to change this. Democracy seeks to redistribute some elements of power more equally, and is not completely unsuccessful in so doing in many real world systems. It does something to change the degree to which the rich get away with what they want -- simply by reducing the degree to which they are really rich. OTOH, its offset often in real democratic politico-economic systems by other elements of the system -- e.g., capitalism -- which have the exact opposite effect.

sitkack 12y ago

Which is why we need an anti-rich society. Eat the 1% and redistribute their wealth. I can only hope that a distributed post scarcity society and technology base can render their money worthless.