Ultimately, it is the same thing, though. One group is given a right to something better than another group simply from being lucky enough to being born into it. Whether it is being Born into the Saudi royal family, being born a Bush or Kennedy, or being born American... you are still granted something you didn't earn simply by virtue of your birth.
It surprises me that you would support such inequality since you clearly dislike inequality in monarchies.
As always, you and I are on opposite sides of this argument and if there is ever a revolution (and you are actually in the States) it will be a very interesting day when we meet. But lets address a few things...
You're right. I dislike nations and think they're outdated and meaningless, as are borders. At most, if we must keep nations I think they should function vaguely like the states do in the US. Transparent entities that are there just for variations in the laws and for ease of governing.
I clearly don't think that simply being born on a bit of soil a few miles north of a border rather than a few miles south should entitle you to affluence. You're right that the world isn't fair, but that isn't a reason to just accept things as they are. Slavery, segregation, genocide, nationwide genocide, and countless attrocities are also totally unfair. Should we just say "HAH! Too bad you were born there with that color skin! Now stop whining, life isn't fair..."
I find the belief that changing a political system is a fantasy and that your stance is in the "real world" very depressing, actually. I see the republicans do that a lot. I also see a strong anti-education stance in that party "Oh, once you get into the real world blah blah." It bothers me quite a bit, actually, because the people who say those things actually have an aire of arrogance about them. Like "Silly people with their doctorates thinking they can change things. Haha, don't they know that this is as good as it gets?" It's no different than the little 8 year olds in LA who flash gang signs because they figure that being part of a gang is as good as it is going to get. They don't think about the possibilities of being a lawyer, a doctor, an astronaught, or a president. Nope, selling drugs and shooting at people is about as far as their imaginations take them. It's all part of the same sickness and the primary symptom is a total loss of hope. It is why I feel pity for people like that and want to open their eyes, why I want to open YOUR eyes.
As for your theory that a king can be a serf and vice versa. Kennedy, Bush, Rockefeller... hell, all of the old money families in the South. If you think we don't have a ruling class, that we don't have royal dynasties, and that people don't get into office based on their lineage (we call it name recognition, but it is the same thing), then I'll have a lot more to explain to you than I thought I would. Dude, you're never going to be president. You didn't go to an Ivy League school and you aren't part of a known aristocratic family. Why didn't you go to an Ivy League school? Probably for the same reason a lot of people don't even bother trying, because they don't realize they can. They lack the power to dream of that goal. And those that do often get blocked by those royal families who have undeserving children (kids who are too stupid to go that high in schooling) but have a royal name and a lot of money, so they take seats from kids who are poor but are very intelligent. I know you want the US to be a meritocracy, but it isn't. It isn't even close. I've contemplated some reforms that would make it more likely to be a meritocracy, but for right now it is style very much a dynastic society. Hell, with the rise of corporations I'd argue that it is a corporatocracy (which again, makes nations meaningless)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Reposted to fix a HUGE typo (part 1)
Date: 2005-11-11 08:13 pm (UTC)It surprises me that you would support such inequality since you clearly dislike inequality in monarchies.
As always, you and I are on opposite sides of this argument and if there is ever a revolution (and you are actually in the States) it will be a very interesting day when we meet. But lets address a few things...
You're right. I dislike nations and think they're outdated and meaningless, as are borders. At most, if we must keep nations I think they should function vaguely like the states do in the US. Transparent entities that are there just for variations in the laws and for ease of governing.
I clearly don't think that simply being born on a bit of soil a few miles north of a border rather than a few miles south should entitle you to affluence. You're right that the world isn't fair, but that isn't a reason to just accept things as they are. Slavery, segregation, genocide, nationwide genocide, and countless attrocities are also totally unfair. Should we just say "HAH! Too bad you were born there with that color skin! Now stop whining, life isn't fair..."
I find the belief that changing a political system is a fantasy and that your stance is in the "real world" very depressing, actually. I see the republicans do that a lot. I also see a strong anti-education stance in that party "Oh, once you get into the real world blah blah." It bothers me quite a bit, actually, because the people who say those things actually have an aire of arrogance about them. Like "Silly people with their doctorates thinking they can change things. Haha, don't they know that this is as good as it gets?" It's no different than the little 8 year olds in LA who flash gang signs because they figure that being part of a gang is as good as it is going to get. They don't think about the possibilities of being a lawyer, a doctor, an astronaught, or a president. Nope, selling drugs and shooting at people is about as far as their imaginations take them. It's all part of the same sickness and the primary symptom is a total loss of hope. It is why I feel pity for people like that and want to open their eyes, why I want to open YOUR eyes.
As for your theory that a king can be a serf and vice versa. Kennedy, Bush, Rockefeller... hell, all of the old money families in the South. If you think we don't have a ruling class, that we don't have royal dynasties, and that people don't get into office based on their lineage (we call it name recognition, but it is the same thing), then I'll have a lot more to explain to you than I thought I would. Dude, you're never going to be president. You didn't go to an Ivy League school and you aren't part of a known aristocratic family. Why didn't you go to an Ivy League school? Probably for the same reason a lot of people don't even bother trying, because they don't realize they can. They lack the power to dream of that goal. And those that do often get blocked by those royal families who have undeserving children (kids who are too stupid to go that high in schooling) but have a royal name and a lot of money, so they take seats from kids who are poor but are very intelligent. I know you want the US to be a meritocracy, but it isn't. It isn't even close. I've contemplated some reforms that would make it more likely to be a meritocracy, but for right now it is style very much a dynastic society. Hell, with the rise of corporations I'd argue that it is a corporatocracy (which again, makes nations meaningless)