O
Otavio
Guest
Spot on.
Great answer in that thread by Gorgias.
- Status
Great answer in that thread by Gorgias.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I don’t think morality or lack thereof knows social class
O
Otavio
Guest
I agree.
N
NovusFidem
Guest
Left and right aside: of course the rich can’t be trusted just because they are rich, just as the poor can’t be trusted just because they are poor. People deserve our trust because they are people.
Our President and ex-President and their many colleagues (accused of corruption) started poor, probably with great intentions for the country. And then, got rich. The fact that a lot of that money was probably obtained through sketchy deals only shows that all those involved were themselves corrupted; it has nothing to do with being rich or poor.
G
GEddie
Guest
That’s crazy. You want to pay Trump three times what he’s worth??? For eight years!!!
The citizens are overtaxed enough!
ICXC NIKA
The citizens are overtaxed enough!
ICXC NIKA
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The above about Lenin reminds me of that line in “Man for All Seasons” in which More chided his former colleague who had been made the Chancellor of Wales…“what profit it a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul…but for Wales?”
Possibly in gaining Russia, Lenin lost far more than he gained.
I’m reminded of two small towns of the same size near here. One is essentially run by some rather low-rent types, and has been for decades. Another is a virtual oligarchy, run by retired businessmen, decade after decade. Guess which one has good lighting, streets, an excellent police force, top flight utilities, some actual cultural events, and no real estate taxes at all?
Well, it’s the second of the two.
And guess which one has terrible streets, utilities, corrupt law enforcement, high real estate taxes, and lacks amenities? The first.
But to call the small town oligarchs “rich” would be a misstatement, at least in a way. In this part of the country even the rich are “petit bourgeois” socially, at most. So, in the “class warfare” debates, I, myself would rather be ruled by petit bourgeois than any other class if a choice must be made. Certainly, they’re capable of corruption, but at least they don’t make a spectacle of it and at least have pretensions to honesty and morality.
My suspicion is that Chesterton would share my prejudice.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
As near as I can tell from his rather murky background, Obama did not start out poor and never lived the life of a poor person.
G
GEddie
Guest
Based on his header, Novus Fidem is not in the USA and so presumably is not referring to Obama.
An easy, minor mistake however…
ICXC NIKA
B
BartholomewB
Guest
The OP is misrepresenting, to a certain extent, the purpose of the Brazilian protesters carrying signs. The unspoken starting point of the argument is that every politician, as soon as he is elected, will steal as much as he can to become rich. The longer he remains in office, the less he will need to steal in his second and subsequent terms, because he has already pocketed his first million in his first term.
The sign is meant as ironic criticism of the political class in general and of the ruling Workers Party in particular, whose star performers such as the former president Lula, his former finance minister Antonio Palocci, and other party bigwigs such as José Dirceu and many others, seem to have been guilty of self-enrichment on a considerably more ambitious scale than was considered acceptable by earlier generations of crooked pols.
The sign is meant as ironic criticism of the political class in general and of the ruling Workers Party in particular, whose star performers such as the former president Lula, his former finance minister Antonio Palocci, and other party bigwigs such as José Dirceu and many others, seem to have been guilty of self-enrichment on a considerably more ambitious scale than was considered acceptable by earlier generations of crooked pols.
O
Otavio
Guest
Friend, I said that I do not commit the injustice of saying that sign represent what most protesters think.
Honestly, I don’ think it is ironic at all. There are some people in Brazil who really think a rich man would “not have the need to steal”. I’ve heard it several times when people talk about some rich celebrity (like tv hosts) running for office. For example, famous singer Lobão said that he thinks a politian should be a member of the elite because “a poor man has a greater chance of getting dirty”.
veja.abril.com.br/noticia/brasil/lobao-o-pai-disso-tudo-e-o-lula/
Also, like I said here, I don’t discuss the merit of protests. To be honest, I don’t even want to get into the partisan discussion (note: no, I am not saying you follow party “a” or party “B”), that seems to have gotten pretty nasty recently.
God bless.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Yes, Otavio, I remember that interview in Veja. Do you think Lobão is seriously calling for a change in the law, so that any candidate running in any election would have to be at least 50, very wealthy, fluent in six languages, and with degrees in international politics, economics, and law? Or is he just exaggerating for the sake of effect, to underscore his exasperation with the Brazilian political scene?
Remember that Lobão isn’t writing an op-ed piece for Veja. He’s just a singer and songwriter who was asked for an interview after he was spotted among the crowd at a protest march.
The original quote:
Pensa em ser político? Eu não tenho o menor gabarito para isso! Se eu pudesse, faria uma legislação estabelecendo que, para ser político, é preciso ter mais de 50 anos, muito dinheiro, falar seis idiomas, ter curso de política internacional, economia e direito. Tem que ser gabaritado, alguém da elite. Um cara pobre tem mais chances de se lambuzar. Você vê o Michael Bloomberg (empresário bilionário e ex-prefeito de Nova York) doa 50 milhões de dólares para a municipalidade. O Brasil é um país de gatunos, de pessoas que vão para a política para resolver sua situação financeira, quando deveria ser o contrário. Apartamento funcional deveria ser pequenininho, para o cara ficar lá, labutando, não para ser um parasita. Política não é para ganhar dinheiro.
D
didymus
Guest
But the rich are much more likely to give bribes which here in the US are called “campaign contributions”.
M
Matilda_Bennett
Guest
Please remember that discussions of particular political parties or figures are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.
O
Otavio
Guest
Thanks for the heads up. May I say that it is a wonderful rule!
I would never say in any way or form (even for the “sake of effect”) that the poor are more likely to ger dirty. I got your point. I just disagree with it.
God bless you, my friend.
O
Otavio
Guest
Good point.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
But… the one vote of a poor person can upset all the “contributions” of the rich.
Especially when that vote is based on a promise of government support and expanded welfare.
L
Latias
Guest
Don’t worry, if things get out of hand with an insurrectionist and revolutionary proletarian and peasants , one could protect their assets with the help of the paladins of the rich and privileged such as the CIA, the National Guard, paramilitary death squads, interrogation and torture of organizations such as DINA. Maybe some Islamic radicals would also help you too. Also, the rich can portray themselves as beleaguered and victimized, even though they never have to experience the abject deprivation and disenfranchisement of the truly impoverished.
That’s what conservatism and the impulse to protect one’s assets leads to, but now it is just benign in the sense that there are tax havens and complicit pro-austerity politicians. You cannot divorce conservative ideology with history; the rich are ultimately selfish and ruthless (with an emphasis on the latter). One would have to be ingenuous to believe they are compassionate and humane when it comes to protecting their social status and would abandon such pretense if there are no other recourse: again this is a lesson of history.
The bottom line is that billionaires exert immense political influence , and the corruption of politicians (usually by wealthy individuals who want to pursue the particular financial interests) is much more preferable than having a revolutionary leftist government. Corruption will always be endemic in a capitalist government simply due to the structure and limitations of that government and the incentives built into it.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
There is no such thing as a capitalist government. Capitalism, or the Free Market, is an economic system. IF true Capitalism existed anywhere in the world today… corruption and bribery could not exist. Because in a true Capitalist economy, government has no authority over the Free Market. Once the first government regulation is imposed…the Market ceases to be Free. What we have are “mixed economies”. If problems exist within these flawed systems it is because of government intervention into the Market…not Capitalism.
S
sallybutler
Guest
I think Chesterton’s view on the rich may have been supported by a study done at Berkeley. I don’t think he saw much difference between them and politicians.
Berkeley study
dailyoftheday.com/new-study-at-cal-berkeley-shows-that-rich-people-are-jerks/
Essay by Chesterton on the worship of the wealthy.
readbookonline.net/readOnLine/20613/
Berkeley study
dailyoftheday.com/new-study-at-cal-berkeley-shows-that-rich-people-are-jerks/
Essay by Chesterton on the worship of the wealthy.
readbookonline.net/readOnLine/20613/
G
GEddie
Guest
Methinks that is an overstatement.
Irrespective of the economic system, Government requires to procure goods and services – more, in fact, than anybody else. And corruption and bribery would be employed by the heads of businesses to ensure they got those lucrative contracts.
Also, some sectors, like transportation and mining, require regulation for the general good. So pure capitalism is not the ideal state.
ICXC NIKA
- Status