gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
And now we just derailed this thread. I feel kind of proud, I guess?
And now we just derailed this thread. I feel kind of proud, I guess?
So I'd presume social power means to get others to do want I want. So social inequality means that one has an easier time to get people to do what he or she wants than someone else.Social equality? Even in chimpanzees some are more socially powerful than others, because of their strength, their ambition, their cleverness, or their ability to work with others. That dynamic will manifest itself in any and every group of people. Reason and ideals are no match for a million years of evolutionary social behavior.
Tolni, IRL, I am using "HELLO" pronounced with a heavy Slavic (Bulgarian?) accent to notify I am in the vicinity of Bulgarians or Eastern Europeans in general. Do you encounter that commonly? Are you even aware of it?
It probably has origins in the fact how Bulgarians still retain their accent when English, especially when they say "HELLO".
EDIT: This thread will not work in its original purpose, so I have decided to play along with the "HELLO" thing.
I don't think it's a good idea at all.
Look how family businesses go: you start with an enterprising individual who builds it up, the son takes it on and loses interest, the grandson squanders the lot on fast cars and women.
Long-lasting family businesses are disappearingly rare.
A post more on topic:
I think there are definitely principle advantages to the ruling class being an outright nobility.
- Continuity - The people in charge will tend to know their stuff
- Responsibility - The people in charge will tend to think more in the long term and in general will more (have to) identify with the success or failures of their policies
- Independence - The people in charge will be less interested in smoke and mirrors over substance or in their personal career over the success of their politics
Downsides I see
- Instability of the whole system - democratic institutions have a pacifying effect, people have an easier time to render to them than institutions of an outright ruling class. The "I rule over you" - part is a bit too much in their face
- Supremacy of the interests of the elite. That of course is not a problem unique to an political aristocracy, but in this case it seems to be outright institutionalized
- Comfort bubble - The good thing about the mutual competition of democratic institutions is that not only the media or the people but the political class itself will look for screw-ups
That they focus way too much on elite interests is a huge huge potential issue. And by that I am also referring to corruption.
In the end I think that such a political aristocracy can be good for economic development. Because that will tend to enrich the aristocracy. Not unlike like in China (or Singapore?). On all other avenues I think it will tend to fare worse.
It basically goes against everything I have learned over the years to actually expect an aristocracy to stay true to their honor and social norms. Except perhaps that kind of honor that is just a fancy word for not being ones female dog.
I just can wonder - where you do take this faith into the virtuousness of aristocracy from?
This sacral element to me merely means that certain power structures are fully officially cemented and beyond discussion. That strengthens aristocrats. I don't see how it makes them saints. Or that it ever did.
Pangur Bán;13288091 said:Does a Bush or Clinton or Kennedy need to go around in ermine to constitute a ruler to be?
A post more on topic:
I think there are definitely principle advantages to the ruling class being an outright nobility.
- Continuity - The people in charge will tend to know their stuff
- Responsibility - The people in charge will tend to think more in the long term and in general will more (have to) identify with the success or failures of their policies
- Independence - The people in charge will be less interested in smoke and mirrors over substance or in their personal career over the success of their politics
Downsides I see
- Instability of the whole system - democratic institutions have a pacifying effect, people have an easier time to render to them than institutions of an outright ruling class. The "I rule over you" - part is a bit too much in their face
- Supremacy of the interests of the elite. That of course is not a problem unique to an political aristocracy, but in this case it seems to be outright institutionalized
- Comfort bubble - The good thing about the mutual competition of democratic institutions is that not only the media or the people but the political class itself will look for screw-ups
That they focus way too much on elite interests is a huge huge potential issue. And by that I am also referring to corruption.
In the end I think that such a political aristocracy can be good for economic development. Because that will tend to enrich the aristocracy. Not unlike like in China (or Singapore?). On all other avenues I think it will tend to fare worse.