Is money the new "Divine right"

[PLAYER57832]

divine right was the belief that a king or queen was chosen by god, and ruled with god's consent.

Not entirely, much of it was based on lineage and patriarchy. And those are still powerful forces today.

well yes, not precisely. precisely it is that a king (or queen) rules because god wants them to and that as a result, there is no authority on earth that they must answer to

that is divine right. if it was based on patriarchy then it would not apply to a queen

Oh pleases... queens were only allowed secondarily in limited circumstances. And while many of the lessor men had power, the women had often just had power in the bedroom.

[the carpet man]

nobility was chosen by the king.

if you want to complain about modern american system then go ahead, but it is not comparable to divine right and 16th century feudal system.

who is saying that an executive 'deserves' better healthcare? an executive gets better healthcare because they can afford it.

queens were only allowed secondarily in limited circumstances. And while many of the lessor men had power, the women had often just had power in the bedroom.

queen anne, queen mary, queen elizabeth of england? catherine the great of russia? these were not under the thumb of men. where did you study feudalism and medieval history of europe? 15 minutes on wikipedia?

[PLAYER57832]

nobility was chosen by the king.

Acting with God's will.

if you want to complain about modern american system then go ahead, but it is not comparable to divine right and 16th century feudal system.

Explain how. That is the question.

who is saying that an executive 'deserves' better healthcare? an executive gets better healthcare because they can afford it.

If that executive runs the company, they are deciding what others in the company make.
And.. why is that OK?

queens were only allowed secondarily in limited circumstances. And while many of the lessor men had power, the women had often just had power in the bedroom.

queen anne, queen mary, queen elizabeth of england? catherine the great of russia? these were not under the thumb of men. where did you study feudalism and medieval history of europe? 15 minutes on wikipedia?

Yep, read that list ..5, compared with how many males?. And they were only allowed to rule because the males had died, they were able to take advantage. Also, they had to develop pretty hefty coalitions (which is how they maintained their power)

Also, they were queens. Care to delve into the power of the lessor women?

[the carpet man]

divine right: the king rules because he has been chosen by god. no one on earth can question him, because to question him is to question god. the king can do what he pleases. the king is given power by god

2012 usa: people with more money can afford to do more things. people with more money have more political power. no one is considered untouchable (many corporate executives have been put in jail, i believe). the executive gets his power from the money he makes from his company. he generates his own power.

[Night Strike]

Today, the idea is that those with more money have worked and therefore deserve more. Except.. is that the truth? And, why is it that someone reading stock portfolios well and making some decent investments a better judge of what is best for my kids? For society? Why do they get to decide I don't need healthcare, don't need a wage that allows me to support my kids on my own, etc.

Why is it more just to decide that a factory worker who spends 50 hours a week in hard labor, who struggled through a poor school system, is less deserving of basic healthcare than an executive in an office who started out with an ivy league education thanks to daddy, then hires some good brokers, places some decent investment?

I am not arguing here, I am asking "why".

The answer to "why" is because the laborer has agreed to work for the wages he is currently earning. If he ran his own company and could to afford to provide health care, then he may do so. But he doesn't run the company, so he can't demand the company give him whatever he wants. If he doesn't like his compensation, he can find a new job. And if you don't like executives deciding whether you need healthcare or how to support your kids, why do you want the government to do those same things? You want the government to pick and choose which treatments are approved. You want the government to raise everybody else's kids because their parents don't do it the right (liberal) way.

[comic boy]

Player
I mostly understand the points you make ( I think ) and sympathise with many of them but your prose gives me , and it appears everybody else , a giant headache. Please consider investing in a good script writer or at least a competent editor.

[comic boy]

Today, the idea is that those with more money have worked and therefore deserve more. Except.. is that the truth? And, why is it that someone reading stock portfolios well and making some decent investments a better judge of what is best for my kids? For society? Why do they get to decide I don't need healthcare, don't need a wage that allows me to support my kids on my own, etc.

Why is it more just to decide that a factory worker who spends 50 hours a week in hard labor, who struggled through a poor school system, is less deserving of basic healthcare than an executive in an office who started out with an ivy league education thanks to daddy, then hires some good brokers, places some decent investment?

I am not arguing here, I am asking "why".

The answer to "why" is because the laborer has agreed to work for the wages he is currently earning. If he ran his own company and could to afford to provide health care, then he may do so. But he doesn't run the company, so he can't demand the company give him whatever he wants. If he doesn't like his compensation, he can find a new job. And if you don't like executives deciding whether you need healthcare or how to support your kids, why do you want the government to do those same things? You want the government to pick and choose which treatments are approved. You want the government to raise everybody else's kids because their parents don't do it the right (liberal) way.

You might try growing up and recognising that unfettered capitalism has been utterly discredited
, why do you so despise the concept of a middle way incorporating capitalist ideals and liberal safeguards.

[comic boy]

Today, the idea is that those with more money have worked and therefore deserve more. Except.. is that the truth? And, why is it that someone reading stock portfolios well and making some decent investments a better judge of what is best for my kids? For society? Why do they get to decide I don't need healthcare, don't need a wage that allows me to support my kids on my own, etc.

Why is it more just to decide that a factory worker who spends 50 hours a week in hard labor, who struggled through a poor school system, is less deserving of basic healthcare than an executive in an office who started out with an ivy league education thanks to daddy, then hires some good brokers, places some decent investment?

I am not arguing here, I am asking "why".

The answer to "why" is because the laborer has agreed to work for the wages he is currently earning. If he ran his own company and could to afford to provide health care, then he may do so. But he doesn't run the company, so he can't demand the company give him whatever he wants. If he doesn't like his compensation, he can find a new job. And if you don't like executives deciding whether you need healthcare or how to support your kids, why do you want the government to do those same things? You want the government to pick and choose which treatments are approved. You want the government to raise everybody else's kids because their parents don't do it the right (liberal) way.

You might try growing up and recognising that unfettered capitalism has been utterly discredited
, why do you so despise the concept of a middle way incorporating capitalist ideals and liberal safeguards.

[PLAYER57832]

Today, the idea is that those with more money have worked and therefore deserve more. Except.. is that the truth? And, why is it that someone reading stock portfolios well and making some decent investments a better judge of what is best for my kids? For society? Why do they get to decide I don't need healthcare, don't need a wage that allows me to support my kids on my own, etc.

Why is it more just to decide that a factory worker who spends 50 hours a week in hard labor, who struggled through a poor school system, is less deserving of basic healthcare than an executive in an office who started out with an ivy league education thanks to daddy, then hires some good brokers, places some decent investment?

I am not arguing here, I am asking "why".

The answer to "why" is because the laborer has agreed to work for the wages he is currently earning.

If that were true, then any slave who did not run away would be accepting what they are given, too.
People work because they like to eat. When they cannot get enough to provide fully, they work for what they can get, even if it is just to stave off real starvation.

So that argument is not really valid.

If he ran his own company and could to afford to provide health care, then he may do so. But he doesn't run the company, so he can't demand the company give him whatever he wants. If he doesn't like his compensation, he can find a new job.

Except, why is someone inheriting a company better than a king inheriting his position? Or are you assuming the owner built the company on his own?

But that bit about "not liking the compensation" only applies when someone has a particular type of skill set that is in high demand. Most lower wage earners and even many very skilled people have to take what they get.

And if you don't like executives deciding whether you need healthcare or how to support your kids, why do you want the government to do those same things? You want the government to pick and choose which treatments are approved.

The government IS US, for one thing.

You want the government to raise everybody else's kids because their parents don't do it the right (liberal) way.

Nothing I have said in any way indicates this, but why should you worry about honesty.

[Night Strike]

If a person does not have the skill set to earn a higher wage, then why should the higher wage just be given to them anyway?? If you want to earn a higher wage that requires more skill, then you should go out and learn that skill. You shouldn't just be handed the money/raise anyway. A company can only pay you what you're worth to the company, not the money you decide you need to live on.

[Lootifer]

If a person does not have the skill set to earn a higher wage, then why should the higher wage just be given to them anyway?? If you want to earn a higher wage that requires more skill, then you should go out and learn that skill. You shouldn't just be handed the money/raise anyway. A company can only pay you what you're worth to the company, not the money you decide you need to live on.

So the son of the ivy league educated stoke broker and the son of the low income factory worker have both the exact same opportunities in life? They are equally likely to succeed? There are no barriers to advancement in front of one but not the other?

[Night Strike]

If a person does not have the skill set to earn a higher wage, then why should the higher wage just be given to them anyway?? If you want to earn a higher wage that requires more skill, then you should go out and learn that skill. You shouldn't just be handed the money/raise anyway. A company can only pay you what you're worth to the company, not the money you decide you need to live on.

So the son of the ivy league educated stoke broker and the son of the low income factory worker have both the exact same opportunities in life? They are equally likely to succeed? There are no barriers to advancement in front of one but not the other?

No two people are exactly the same, so no, they don't have exactly the same opportunities in life. But this country is full of examples of people who have bettered their status in society than what their parents had. There are countless stories of immigrants coming over to the US and having a hard, poor life but their kids or grandkids enjoyed major successes both monetarily and in prestige. In America, you CAN improve in life, no matter where you started. And that's done without the government taking from the "rich" to give to you. You should work to better yourself, not work to have the government tear down those who are richer than you.

[Lootifer]

No two people are exactly the same, so no, they don't have exactly the same opportunities in life. But this country is full of examples of people who have bettered their status in society than what their parents had. There are countless stories of immigrants coming over to the US and having a hard, poor life but their kids or grandkids enjoyed major successes both monetarily and in prestige. In America, you CAN improve in life, no matter where you started. And that's done without the government taking from the "rich" to give to you. You should work to better yourself, not work to have the government tear down those who are richer than you.

An efficient government re-distribution system wont be tearing down anything.

"The American Dream" is something that is important correct? So why would you be against taxes that assist in the achievement of said "dream"? Such as giving the son of afrementioned factory worker education of equal quality to ritchie rich, so that his chance or "realising the american dream" is improved? (note that Ritchie Rich and his father aint having their empire ripped to shreds here, they may just have one less gold fixture in their bathroom, alert the presses!).

[Night Strike]

No two people are exactly the same, so no, they don't have exactly the same opportunities in life. But this country is full of examples of people who have bettered their status in society than what their parents had. There are countless stories of immigrants coming over to the US and having a hard, poor life but their kids or grandkids enjoyed major successes both monetarily and in prestige. In America, you CAN improve in life, no matter where you started. And that's done without the government taking from the "rich" to give to you. You should work to better yourself, not work to have the government tear down those who are richer than you.

An efficient government re-distribution system wont be tearing down anything.

"The American Dream" is something that is important correct? So why would you be against taxes that assist in the achievement of said "dream"? Such as giving the son of afrementioned factory worker education of equal quality to ritchie rich, so that his chance or "realising the american dream" is improved? (note that Ritchie Rich and his father aint having their empire ripped to shreds here, they may just have one less gold fixture in their bathroom, alert the presses!).

Because it's not the government's job to lift you out of poverty. It's YOUR job to do so. And the government doesn't let you get an education equal in quality to "ritchie rich". It forces you to go to their government schools while "ritchie rich" gets to go to private schools. The government doesn't want poor people to get a better education; it only wants poor people to get an education that teaches them to be dependent upon it for all of their needs. If the government wanted you to get a better education, it would allow poor students in failing schools to have vouchers to get out of the failing schools.

[Phatscotty]

So the son of the ivy league educated stoke broker and the son of the low income factory worker have both the exact same opportunities in life? They are equally likely to succeed? There are no barriers to advancement in front of one but not the other?

That isn't the point or the reason, just a possible result. But you miss the reason, that in my country, you have the opportunity to pass something onto your children. That tends to motivate you more and produce more than if you needed to provide for someone else's children. You are looking at if backwards. If you want to eliminate barriers, don't start with taking away the ability for people to give their children a better life.

It all starts somewhere, and I would say that the low income factory worker is probably motivated to try their best to make sure their children do not have to struggle as they are, and hopefully, I'm sure the factory workers prays/wishes every single night that their child can get into an ivy league school, and hopefully work at a desk, maybe as a stock Broker? This happens in my country, over and over and over again, tens of millions of times over. Look at our president....his father was a low-income goat-herder in Africa.

You would be the one to try to take away the only thing a low income factory worker probably has going for them, that is the dream of their family living a better life, not becoming a low income factory worker.

Not to mention, you take away all possible thought of the reasonswhy the low-income worker is a low-income factory worker. Did they just get out of prison? Are they an alcoholic and can't show up on time so the only job they can hold is one where it doesn't matter when you show up? Do they have a gambling or a drug problem that caused they to lose their old middle income job? Have they been fired from every job they ever had? Do they refuse to do their jobs correctly? or doesnt any of this matter?

[everywhere116]

This thread is absolutely ridiculous.

[PLAYER57832]

If a person does not have the skill set to earn a higher wage, then why should the higher wage just be given to them anyway??

Good... a legitimate question/point!
The question is whether that is actually what happens.

Also, in a more esoteric manner, are people themselves really in full control of their skills. At one extreme, of course not everyone is born equal. Does that mean they have fewer rights? At the other side, is someone living in a good school district more deserving than someone born in a poor one?

If you want to earn a higher wage that requires more skill, then you should go out and learn that skill. You shouldn't just be handed the money/raise anyway.

but CAN people just "go out and learn that skill?" Truly? Can they do that and also support themselves.? More importantly, does everyone have access? Now.. I am arguing esoterics here. In the real world, there is no such thing as perfection. No one will ever have truly equal access to basically anything, but at what point are the differences small enough that we can deal with it?
(note.. I am definitely playing devils advocate there to a large extent).

A company can only pay you what you're worth to the company, not the money you decide you need to live on.

Except, then why not just get slaves? And why is it OK to "decide' that a CEO is work many millions, but the receptionist does not deserve enough to allow paying rent and food without assistance.

AND, given that the decision is made by that same CEO, to a large extent, is this really a legitimate basis?

[saxitoxin]

Not to derail this thread, though it does need derailing, however, as an interesting bit of trivia, it wasn't until the 16th century that the last of the European monarchies (with Sweden) became hereditary. After the collapse of Rome in the west, most European states practiced the proto-Norse system of elected monarchies.

So, anyway, the idea of divine right realized through heredity is a relatively modern one, unknown in traditional societies where the will of God was divined through an election ritual rather than a sexual ritual, as with contemporary monarchies. Isn't that great?

[PLAYER57832]

Not to derail this thread, though it does need derailing, however, as an interesting bit of trivia, it wasn't until the 16th century that the last of the European monarchies (with Sweden) became hereditary. After the collapse of Rome in the west, most European states practiced the proto-Norse system of elected monarchies.

So, anyway, the idea of divine right realized through heredity is a relatively modern one, unknown in traditional societies where the will of God was divined through an election ritual rather than a sexual ritual, as with contemporary monarchies. Isn't that great?

Not entirely true, though. Denmark traces its kings back to the Gorm the Old, rough 500 AD. And Denmark rather occupied Sweden for a large stretch there, (though don't point that out too forcefully to a Swede )

What you really saw in early Europe was not much civilization at all. Egypt, India, etc ...e ven ancient China all had hereditory lineages. Some more modern African nations/tribes had different systems, I believe. though.

[saxitoxin]

Not to derail this thread, though it does need derailing, however, as an interesting bit of trivia, it wasn't until the 16th century that the last of the European monarchies (with Sweden) became hereditary. After the collapse of Rome in the west, most European states practiced the proto-Norse system of elected monarchies.

So, anyway, the idea of divine right realized through heredity is a relatively modern one, unknown in traditional societies where the will of God was divined through an election ritual rather than a sexual ritual, as with contemporary monarchies. Isn't that great?

Not entirely true, though.

I guess that's why the English language has one word, "m-o-s-t", and another word, with a seperate and distinct meaning, spelled "a-l-l."

[PLAYER57832]

Not to derail this thread, though it does need derailing, however, as an interesting bit of trivia, it wasn't until the 16th century that the last of the European monarchies (with Sweden) became hereditary. After the collapse of Rome in the west, most European states practiced the proto-Norse system of elected monarchies.

So, anyway, the idea of divine right realized through heredity is a relatively modern one, unknown in traditional societies where the will of God was divined through an election ritual rather than a sexual ritual, as with contemporary monarchies. Isn't that great?

Not entirely true, though.

I guess that's why the English language has one word, "m-o-s-t", and another word, with a seperate and distinct meaning, spelled "a-l-l."

Uh.. the point was there is more to the world than Europe.. and you were looking at fairly recent history, at that.

Gee, thought you were against eurocentracism?

[thegreekdog]

Do Asian and African nations also subscribe to the theory of "divine right?"

[jimboston]

Greek... why do you bother?

You know it's a wasted effort.

[thegreekdog]

Greek... why do you bother?

You know it's a wasted effort.

I get bored.

[jimboston]

Greek... why do you bother?

You know it's a wasted effort.

I get bored.

What state is worse...

Bored -vs- Frustrated