By Bob Ellis
Dakota Voice
There's been a fair amount of discussion in the public square lately concerning fears of a plutocracy, which is a state ruled by the wealthy. But what about a ptochocracy?
As well-intentioned as some of this plutocracy talk may be, I fear a great deal of it may just be more business-bashing and class-envy--something we have too much in this free country which is infected by a sickening dose of Marxism.
For the most part, all nations throughout all human history have at least in some sense been "ruled by the wealthy." After all, how many poor people and beggars are likely to end up in positions of power? (Full Article)
Featured Article
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Pursuing Plutocracy, Ptochocracy, or a Republic?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Stan Adelstein bought Republican leaning District 32 for one of the most liberal candidates I ever met. The vice-chair of the State GOP was the victim of misplaced wealth.
In the news is a billionaire expected to purchase the presidency running on the Independent ticket.
It is not all about bashing business.
Bruce -
I understand what you're saying, Bruce, and don't dispute the facts you cited.
But my point is that we should be criticizing any illegal or unethical behaviors, not the wealth itself. We get sidetracked from the real issue and lose moral potency.
I would also join you in lamenting the fact that the best candidate--by far--lost the Dist. 32 race.
However, I would put more onus for that on the voters of Dist. 32 than on Adelstein. I don't like his victory (or that of his candidate) than you, but the fact that he had more money and spent it isn't in and of itself wrong.
If he broke campaign laws, then he should be prosecuted. If he did something unethical or dirty ("wing nut"?), he should be criticized for that. But the fact that he had wealth and spent it as he saw fit is neither a crime nor immoral. You could make the case that he spent the money in pursuit of immoral goals (i.e. support of abortion, homosexual agenda, etc.) but again that goes back to actions, not wealth itself or the exercise of it.
Here, at first, I thought I was going to disagree, but I don't. You're right, Bob. Wealth, in and of itself, isn't the problem. It is the morality (or lack thereof) of those who possess the wealth that is. However, when those lacking morality, but holding the money, are able to wrongly knock a person down, I think it gets very, very difficult to do the separating of the two.
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. – Benjamin Franklin
William Penn put it this way: "Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants."
How true! How true! Perfect quotes, Theophrastus! Common sense should tell us such, but that's a little gift I think many rejected for the fancy lights of the New Age way of thinking!
is vs. ought, Bob.
Wealth is power, and power corrupts. We have every reason to be inherently distrustful of wealth. Rich men, camels, eyes of needles....
You're right, Cory, that we have every reason to be cautious of the pitfalls that come with wealth. But remember, wealth itself is not the problem, but the heart's response to that wealth.
And I'll say it again, business does not have the ultimate authority to make law and punish lawbreakers. Government does, which is why the Founders set up a limited government, and why they feared the power of government far more than they feared business or the free market.
It looks like from Cory's latest post at the Madville Times today (http://madvilletimes.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-brain-drain-more-people-coming-to.html), he still doesn't get it.
As his post laments the stupidity of people wanting to move to a state like South Dakota that still retains more freedom for the individual that most in our country, he references this post and claims I believe "the poor are too stupid and unworthy to participate in civic life anyway":
"You could read these trends as all positive. The spendy van lines bring us wealthy, established workers, while poor folks throw everything in the truck à la Grapes of Wrath and head for the peach fields. Bob Ellis would certainly approve, since he thinks the poor are too stupid and unworthy to participate in civic life anyway (you're still missing the point, Bob)."
Where did I ever say that? Of course, I forgot. In Cory's world, we are supposed to take property away from some people and give it to others, so that these others who don't have as much as some will have more power.
Cory forgets that America was founded to give each person one vote; poverty does not change that. The (few) people making minimum wage have the same one vote as does Bill Gates.
Unless you're advocating a Marxist wealth redistribution scheme (i.e. legalized plunder, where the government steals from one person and gives it to another), it doesn't get any fairer than that.
Especially when you consider that the poor person has the same opportunity to work hard, come up with a great product or service, and get wealthy just like anyone else.
That's what America was built on: equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. You can't provide equality of outcome without completely destroying the freedom our nation was founded on.
And even if you think you might achieve it, as George Orwell illustrated in the "Animal Farm," some animals will always be more equal than others.
The Corys of the world see anyone who has acquired some comfort and wealth in the world to have come by it in an ill-gotten way. Only the privileged and the cheats can succeed in their view. They fail to appreciate what so many immigrants have come to America for; that is, the opportunity for success through hard work and talent. They see only a zero sum game in which the gain of some comes only at the expense of the poor.
The next time they need a job, I suggest they ask a poor person.
Please research your sources more thoroughly. You James Madison "quote" is a David Barton fabrication and has never been proven.
D. Bunker: Actually it isn't "a David Barton fabrication." Barton says that it is an unconfirmed quotation, which means we don't know that it is an accurate quote...but we don't know that it isn't either. Barton holds to a high standard of not using a quote unless he can trace it back to the original source, which is the best. But there are a number of accurate quotes that have been reprinted and repeated over time while the original sources may be difficult to identify.
It is, however, completely consistent with other quotations he and many other Founders made about the need for religion and morality in the citizenry and in public life, and how the welfare of our Republic depends on them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQi96Fd5o8Q&NR=1
Lizard of Ahaz, your assumption is a logical one, but it fails to take a couple of things into consideration.
The main consideration is that simple religion is useless. Simply saying you're a "this" or "that" or believe "this" or "that" doesn't mean that you've actually adopted the moral code of that religion. That is especially true of Christianity, since in order to actually be a true Christian, you must not only believe in its precepts with your mind, you have to buy into it fully, so fully that Christ said "You must be born again."
The thing is, America is full of people who say they're Christians, but very few of them actually are. And fewer still who articulate the Christian worldview in such a way that it has an influence on our society.
So America has the pretense of being very religious, but in actuality really isn't.
When you couple that lack of life-changing, sincerely-held faith with the tremendous freedom we enjoy in America (more than anywhere in the world), you have a dangerous combination.
You have a lack of religious restraint coupled with great liberty, which results in great license. Thus, we have a lot of problems here.
We must get back to the true, sincere, life-changing faith in Christ that we used to have...back when we were a moral and virtuous people. Otherwise, our freedom is going to help speed our destruction.
Post a Comment