0
0

[–] slope ago 

Ok, do you agree with any of these statements:

1) It's not a good idea to have a permanent ruling class defined by family lines.

2) Its nice when workers can share in profits they have contributed to earning in the first place .

3) Further still, its great when the available land is not gobbled up by profit seekers who engage in artificial scarcity(see housing bubble/crises)

If you disagree with the above thats fair, but I'm curious as to why.

0
0

[–] goatboy ago  (edited ago)

1) Ecology teaches us that given enough time and sufficient resources all roles will eventually be filled in every ecosystem- including that of apex predator. Whether the economy of an ecosystem is the transfer of chemical energy up the food chain as happens in traditional ecosystems or the transfer of monetary energy up the corporate ladder, the rules of ecology hold true. It doesn't matter if we call them aristocracy, elite, oligarchs, or anything else- the types of people who make it to the top of the food chain are without a doubt apex predators and it doesn't matter if we want a ruling class by family lines or delusions of so-called meritocracy. The people filling that role will likely be the same people no matter what their title is.

2) The universe doesn't care about nice and neither do I. It cares about survival of the best adapted and the luckiest and so do I.

3) No one from at least the time of the Romans have figured out an equitable land distribution system that is not gamed by those who figure out how to game the system.

Sometimes it's just easiest to embrace Chinese Taoism and "Do nothing."