Why do you think plutocrats are more equipped to run society than anyone else?

[donnie darko]

What moral and intellectual gifts do the 0.01 percent have that make them fit to rule us? Is the fact they were able to accumulate so much wealth proof alone that they have the divine right of kings? Does God (or Market) prove the Elect's place by blessing them with wealth?

BQ: Do you support the British monarchy? They do after all, "own" the UK and one could argue stripping them of their title is a form of theft.

[The Northbreather]

Instead of blindly hating those with more wealth than you, you might want to examine the relationship between business and government (corruption) that most here are seeking to end....

[dannno]

Certainly nobody here believes that.

About half are anarcho capitlists.

[donnie darko]

Instead of blindly hating those with more wealth than you, you might want to examine the relationship between business and government (corruption) that most here are seeking to end....

I actually agree with you guys on a lot of things, including the toxic relationship between business and government. The difference is I think business has corrupted the government and government needs to be liberated from corporate greed, while most people here think government has corrupted business and corporate power needs to stop being limited by the government.

[Sam I am]

What moral and intellectual gifts do the 0.01 percent have that make them fit to rule us? Is the fact they were able to accumulate so much wealth proof alone that they have the divine right of kings? Does God (or Market) prove the Elect's place by blessing them with wealth?

BQ: Do you support the British monarchy? They do after all, "own" the UK and one could argue stripping them of their title is a form of theft.

Are you really this bad at debate or are you just trolling? It looks to me like you're trolling, but I'm not entirely sure because personal experience has shown me that people this stupid actually do exist.

----

If you're actually interested in some sort of debate, then you really ought to explain to us what you mean by your presumption that "Plutocrats are more equipped to run society than anyone else."

The sad part is, it actually is possible to explain, yet you declined to explain anyway.

What you could have said was this:

There are quite a few Anarcho-Capitalists on this forum. Anarcho-Capitalists believe that there should be no overarching government, and that land owners should have complete control over their land. A consequence of such a system would be that only people who controlled land could rule anything, and if you didn't own any land, and couldn't find any unclaimed land, then you were effectively ruled by those land owners.

But instead you decided to resort to this sorry excuce for straw manning

[AuH20]

I actually agree with you guys on a lot of things, including the toxic relationship between business and government. The difference is I think business has corrupted the government and government needs to be liberated from corporate greed, while most people here think government has corrupted business and corporate power needs to stop being limited by the government.

An out of control corporation is easier to deal with than a rogue government with near limitless resources. That's how I look at it.

[Ronin Truth]

How do equipped plutocrats run a pure abstraction, or how does anyone else, for that matter?

[Sam I am]

An out of control corporation is easier to deal with than a rogue government with near limitless resources. That's how I look at it.

What do you think a government is?

[donnie darko]

What do you think a government is?

Libertarians make a false distinction when they say business good, government bad. A totalitarian government essentially is a business, for one thing.

[AuH20]

Libertarians make a false distinction when they say business good, government bad. A totalitarian government essentially is a business, for one thing.

No one is saying that an unethical business model is good. But if I'm forced between a corporation (that doesn't have access to the various agencies that the federal government does) and the federal government, it is the federal government that I will lose sleep over.

[Origanalist]

I actually agree with you guys on a lot of things, including the toxic relationship between business and government. The difference is I think business has corrupted the government and government needs to be liberated from corporate greed, while most people here think government has corrupted business and corporate power needs to stop being limited by the government.

The two are joined at the hip and have corrupted each other. Show me a example that was otherwise, a "non-corrupted government".

[donnie darko]

The two are joined at the hip and have corrupted each other. Show me a example that was otherwise, a "non-corrupted government".

I don't think Canada has a particularly oppressive or unjust government, for one example.

[AuH20]

What do you think a government is?

So why would anyone consolidate so much power under the banner of the federal government, only to know that the corporations would eventually usurp this concentration of power?

I don't think we can fully escape the urges to dominate and exploit on the part of the denizens of the planet, but we certainly can make the completion of these goals more difficult. Instead of trying to slough it out in the legislatures of 50 states, Monsanto can simply lean on the federal representatives in a particular congressional committee.

[acptulsa]

Libertarians make a false distinction when they say business good, government bad. A totalitarian government essentially is a business, for one thing.

YOU make a false distinction when YOU try to make a distinction between the federal government in Washington and the plutocrats.

Anyone with a lick of sense will tell you that you can't even separate the plutocrats from the bureaucrats with a crowbar, because the bureaucrats are plutocrats.

So, since you are the liberal who thinks no one is competent to mind their own business and the plutobureaucrats should be micromismanaging everything from the stock market to how many non-vegetable items I'm allowed at the supermarket, the question is, 'Why do YOU think plutocrats are better equipped to micromismanage everything and everyone? Since You're the liberal who thinks every business too small to hire three lawyers and five CPA accountants should be regulated out of business with billions lines of corporate-sponsored silliness, and a fair market with a level playing field that feels the need to meet the public's needs is against your principles, why do YOU think plutocrats are the particular drunken sailors who need even more power and tax money?

[dannno]

Libertarians make a false distinction when they say business good, government bad. A totalitarian government essentially is a business, for one thing.

You are used to beltway libertarians.

There are a few here, but most of us are anti-establishment libertarians. We have no desire to give welfare to people with Bentleys.

[Origanalist]

I don't think Canada has a particularly oppressive or unjust government, for one example.

http://voices-voix.ca/en/facts/profi...orism-act-2015
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/The...un-Control.htm

In the United States and Canada, even modest efforts to reduce corporate power have been missing. If anything, Big Business has been given even greater freedom to run rampant over the public interest. The anti-corporate mindset revealed by the Ipsos poll is nowhere to be seen in government policies and priorities. - See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/pu....UkhRqzB8.dpuf

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/adam-ki...b_2946418.html

[Ronin Truth]

Government can just barely manage to run itself, and then only badly sometimes.

[Sam I am]

So why would anyone consolidate so much power under the banner of the federal government, only to know that the corporations would eventually usurp this concentration of power?

I don't think we can fully escape the urges to dominate and exploit on the part of the denizens of the planet, but we certainly can make the completion of these goals more difficult. Instead of trying to slough it out in the legislatures of 50 states, Monsanto can simply lean on the federal representatives in a particular congressional committee.

I think that you missed the point a bit there. The point was that the government actually is a corporation

[HankRicther12]

I actually agree with you guys on a lot of things, including the toxic relationship between business and government. The difference is I think business has corrupted the government and government needs to be liberated from corporate greed, while most people here think government has corrupted business and corporate power needs to stop being limited by the government.

An out of control corporation is easier to deal with than a rogue government with near limitless resources. That's how I look at it.

First off, and this is something it seems even people here have overlooked, there is no such thing as a corporation without govt. It is govt who invented that status, it is only govt who can make you incorporated, and it is govt who hands out the special protections for corporations.

Without govt there would be only business men (or women) who put a product on the shelf, slap a price on it, and you either buy or you don't, it's nothing to do with being "good" or "bad", it's saying the choice is up to you to give them your money, or, if you're really dissatisfied you can start your own business and compete with them. With govt, you don't get asked whether or not you want to buy, you are forced to, and if you want to start a business you are buried in red tape, permits, fees, etc before you can even get started.

Businessmen cannot forcibly do anything to you - govt can.

Businessmen cannot print money or issue lines of credit with nothing to back them - govt can

Businessmen cannot take out loans in your name and then put you on the hook to pay them back - govt can

Everyone talks of the "wealth transfer" in America, well, they are right, there is a wealth transfer, but ask again, who is the only entity that can forcibly take wealth and give it to another? Then add in all the borrowing, money printing, yes, govt is transferring wealth from us to their politically connected friends, and your solution is to.....give the corrupt govt more power?

[Sola_Fide]

What moral and intellectual gifts do the 0.01 percent have that make them fit to rule us? Is the fact they were able to accumulate so much wealth proof alone that they have the divine right of kings? Does God (or Market) prove the Elect's place by blessing them with wealth?

BQ: Do you support the British monarchy? They do after all, "own" the UK and one could argue stripping them of their title is a form of theft.

You are a communist. Why don't you answer the question yourself.

No one here advocates an elite ruling anybody.

[r3volution 3.0]

...pretending that the OP is a not a troll and giving a serious answer

Why do you think plutocrats are more equipped to run society than anyone else? What moral and intellectual gifts do the 0.01 percent have that make them fit to rule us? Is the fact they were able to accumulate so much wealth proof alone that they have the divine right of kings? Does God (or Market) prove the Elect's place by blessing them with wealth?

Presumably you're complaining about the market economy, which you incorrectly understand as a plutocracy (it is actually a "consumerocracy," so to speak).

A kind of democracy in which the consumers are voters.

This is, incidentally, the only good form of democracy - political democracy is quite different and completely disastrous. Monarchy or oligarchy are much better.

The difference between "consumer democracy" in the market and political democracy?

(1) Consumers are capable of distinguishing between good and bad products, voters are not able to distinguish between good and bad politicians/policies - it is a matter of knowledge

(2) In both cases, people will selfishly pursue their own interests, but consumers selfishly pursuing their own interests is good and harms no one, while voters selfishly pursuing their own interests is bad and harms others. More precisely, people can externalize their costs by voting (vote for some programs for which others will pay), whereas consumers cannot - whatever they "vote for" (buy) they and they alone pay for.

BQ: Do you support the British monarchy? They do after all, "own" the UK and one could argue stripping them of their title is a form of theft.

Only if parliament were abolished and real power restored to the monarchy.

As it is, Britain is just another instance of democratic socialism, with a meaningless figurehead monarchy.

[Christopher A. Brown]

What moral and intellectual gifts do the 0.01 percent have that make them fit to rule us? Is the fact they were able to accumulate so much wealth proof alone that they have the divine right of kings? Does God (or Market) prove the Elect's place by blessing them with wealth?

Love the perspective. Such questions enable the most comprehensive answers.

"Why do you think plutocrats are more equipped to run society than anyone else?"

People don't consciously know, but there is reason they think that way.
The elite are heretics and keep oral histories which have considerably greater fidelity with no gaps in the past. It's all unconscious with both the plutocrats AND the obedient public due to a completely not understood compulsive unconscious trance induction that has them working together easily for the protection of each other's interests by effecting any form of dominance of the people that they together exert.

BQ: Do you support the British monarchy? They do after all, "own" the UK and one could argue stripping them of their title is a form of theft.

They gain legitimacy from the church by keeping ancient secrets consistently. They inherent the capacity for legitimacy from ancestors that guarded against that which might expose the heretical unconscious collusion supporting the continuity of dominance of both factions.