politics, polemics, poisonous English journalists

[fpb]

Few things disgust me as intensely as people praising the rich as a class. There is no clearer evidence of a slave mind. Of course, rich people who actually have done something to deserve their wealth do deserve admiration - like anyone who works at something and succeeds. But is there anyone stupid enough to believe that they are the totality, or even the majority, of rich people? And yet there are morons around who have convinced themselves that to be concerned about the large and increasing slice of wealth and power going to a tiny and statistically irrelevant section of society means to practice "the politics of envy". Let us be clear: there is such a thing as the politics of envy. It can be found in any demagogue who tells people they have been abused and places all the blame on the dreadful word "they". But to be concerned about the increasing power of a tiny, deracinated, irresponsible, and cohesive new aristocracy in a society that ought to be egalitarian and democratic - whose founding statement is that all men are created equal - that is not "the politics of envy", it is common sense.

It would be absurd to ask, what is the cause of natural inequality, seeing the bare definition of natural inequality answers the question: it would be more absurd still to enquire, if there might not be some essential connection between the two species of inequality, as it would be asking, in other words, if those who command are necessarily better men than those who obey; and if strength of body or of mind, wisdom or virtue are always to be found in individuals, in the same proportion with power, or riches: a question, fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the hearing of their masters, but unbecoming free and reasonable beings in quest of truth.

Comments

[fishlivejournal.livejournal.com]

Okay, you've been even handed here, and that's commendable.

And no class of people is truly deserving of admiration: we're a pretty lousy species.

Further, I'm on the other side of the world to you, and probably looking at a wildly different situation. Nonetheless:

The majority of rich people have inherited their money, rather than earned it. So? It was their ancestors' choice what to do with the money. Unless you feel that the money was gained illicitly in the first place, giving it to their descendants was their right.

Sure, the rich may not as a group be much better than the rest of us, but there is a certain minimum standard that they need to maintain to *stay* rich. Each generation sees a new bunch of idiots who drink or gamble their inheritance away - and fall out of the class. This winnowing (while tragic) does mean that the survivors are slightly better financial advisors than average.

Finally, the important thing isn't how rich the rich are, but whether the poor can eat. After all, if you're starving, you don't really care how everyone else is doing! And if your basic needs are being met, then it *is* envy if you are still comparing yourself with the Joneses.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

If you think that the important thing is that the poor can eat, you are in the same boat as Esau - you remember, the gentleman who sold his first-born rights for a dish of porridge, because he was hungry. IN a democratic society, the important thing is that the poor should have an equal share in the commonwealth; that, incidentally, also does more than most other things to ensure that they can eat. If we have, as we have, an international class of irresponsible rich whose influence is not exercised through the regular political institutions but through personal influence and corruption, then that is extremely bad news for me and for you, my friend. It means that from the little we would count for even in a fully democratic and law-abiding society, yet more has been taken away; it means that the politicians will listen to the one rich man they go to lunch with (and who will employ them once the voters are tired of putting up with them) with more attention than they will their own voters; and it means that, since voters are also taxpayers, the politicians will use your money and my money to do the bidding of his friend and prospective employer. (One feature of the rising new aristocracy which concerns me deeply is that they basically pay no tax to anyone. What they give is in the nature of a contemptous penny thrown at state authorities to pretend that they are still within the laws.)

I have posted in the past about this, especially here: http://fpb.livejournal.com/219784.html. You may want to read this to see what I mean by "rich". It is a part of a longer series about contemporary American politics:
http://fpb.livejournal.com/217554.html
http://fpb.livejournal.com/217701.html
http://fpb.livejournal.com/219614.html
http://fpb.livejournal.com/219784.html
http://fpb.livejournal.com/223187.html
http://fpb.livejournal.com/228779.html
Most of these also feature long and interesting comments sections.

[fishlivejournal.livejournal.com]

Esau wasn't poor, he was the eldest son of a wealthy pasturalist who was too spoiled to wait half an hour to cook some food.

The simplest way to control the poor is to restrict access to a basic necessity of life, such as food or water. This is a major source of suffering in the third world, as tyrannies use their control of basic needs to maintain control.

According to my government, I live below the poverty line - the result of chronic illness. I find that surprising, as I live quite a comfortable life. Because my basic needs are met, I can spend time having discussions like this with you; will be able to post basic information about the upcoming local election on my LJ; and research issues so as to vote in an informed manner. (Given that self-government was rammed down our throats despite two plebiscites opposed to it does make these words somewhat hollow, I admit).

My response to the


I thoroughly enjoyed your series on American politics! A few things though:

"The Foley Affair" sorry, never heard of it, and websearch turns up far too many Foley options for my limited google-fu to sort.

The idea of the USA as a theocracy has always struck me as crazy. I'm reminded of the Wizard of Id cartoon where a school teacher was brought in for praying in school, and explains that he couldn't help it, he was being mugged by a student.
Pity the writers of Buffy didn't have the guts (okay, suicidal insanity) to consider what would happen if Giles had been found with on school grounds with a crucifix. Sure, swords, crossbow, books of demonology - but a crucifix? He'd have been sacked on the spot.

The hatred directed at recent US presidents: you seem to be describing a case of "Future Shock", yes?

[fishlivejournal.livejournal.com]

Sorry about that, my computer just crashed.

I've no doubt that the USA is growing increasingly corrupt again, but that isn't the end of the world. What will happen is what happens every other time corruption grows out of control - healthier economies will expand at the expense of the US.
Not paying their share of taxes? Then businesses will find themselves outdone by companies in countries that are able to spend tax dollars on infrastructure.
Sure, companies will keep trying to squeeze their workers, but that backfires sooner or later. One local example: the board of directors of a computing firm decided to award themselves a pay rise while cutting back on their actual programmers. Their primary client promptly recruited the entire programming staff, including those who'd been laid off, as that was cheaper than employing the company. Nobody bothered to tell the directors that they no longer had a company.

And last point on your political series:
The only contraceptives with a success rate as low as 99% are condoms: at a measly 80%, they really count as disease control with a minor contraceptive side effect.
And success rate is measured by couples, not by each sexual encounter. Once a contraceptive starts working, it will keep working unless interfered with by other medications (more common than people think). The major problem with contraceptives is the opposite effect - they have a habit of working long after women have stopped using them, to the frustration of would-be mothers.

However, something you may not have noticed: suggest (or get another guy to suggest) that men need access to a reliable contraceptive. It's disturbing how many women explode. The excuse is that "well I wouldn't trust a man, I'm the one who'll get pregnant" as if somehow the man using a contraceptive would force them to stop using their own. As near as I can tell, the idea that men can decide whether or not they will become fathers is deeply repugnant to many women. Probably because it implies that fathers might have some rights regarding their children, as well as responsibilities. :(