Status quo: Is it natural or is it plastic?

National governments in the West have advanced from Monarchies to Republics. Societies have moved from rule by a monarchy aided by the aristocracy, to rule by a plutocracy subject only to ratification by the citizens of the republic.

It seems that, like the poor, we constantly have with us a privileged class. Is it possible to organize a well functioning democracy that does not support a privileged class?

Let me give you my definition of privileged class.

Fifteen years ago there was a humorous saying about George Bush the elder, which went something like this, “George Bush was born on third base and thought he had hit a triple”. My definition of a privileged individual is one who was born on “third base”.

Evidently many assume that the privileged classes are those who have higher IQs or some kind of natural endowment. I do not consider this to be privilege. The privileged are those who, by birth, are endowed with great wealth thereby being placed into a position of power and prestige without any meritorious effort on their part.

Can a democratic society function effectively if no individuals are allowed to inherit great wealth?

I don't think so, as it denies the reason that some of us work so hard. So that my children, and their children, do not have to grow up in poverty, like so many of us have. The government already takes 40% in taxes on inheritance, and I think that is way more than they should. Could you imagine the uproar if the government tried to take it all? Every over-achiever out there with kids would stop creating wealth, and then the economy would really tank. You're also talking about capitol flight on an unimaginable scale.

I know what would happen in my family if we were to disallow inheritance. My wife and I would close up our businesses, liquidate all of our assets, and move somewhere where inheritance is allowed.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Just off the top of my head I would say that no more than one million dollars should be inherited by one child. I think that if a child inherits more than that they would be unlikely to become a self-actualizing productive member of the community.

“In a society as it actually existed in 1787, the privileged few were already in a position to size the first jobs in the judiciary. Since justices were the only officers with life tenure, and since the framers had carefully arranged for “judicial control” over legislation, they could have things their way for all the foreseeable future.

Even if the judiciary should some day come into different hands, so that active protection of the privilege was no longer possible, the system of checks would serve the propertied class…In a society “where the field of private property is already extended to cover practically every form of tangible and intangible wealth”, a deadlocked government serves owner’s interest almost as well as one rigged in their favor. Government continues to help them just by doing nothing.” page XV

Quote from “Explaining America”—Garry Wills

This will have to mean that you want to forcibly split up the ownership of family owned fortune 500 corporations (and others). Where is the sense in that, if you want a well functioning economy?

Who would inherit, if the children of a rich person would not? The government? That is socialistic.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

There are quite a few monarchies in the West. I doubt that there is some kind of natural progress that takes national governments from being monarchies to become republics.

The republic is, in essence, a cooperative form of government. History showed us the worst excesses in cooperative forms of governments in the 20th century with fascism and communism. We are moving away from such excesses in cooperative government. Maybe we will see a future when we move away from democratic republics as well, towards constitutional monarchies.

When it comes to your final question, my answer is no. In every more or less functional society, individuals has been able to inherit a lot. If not monetary wealth, they have been able to inherit power. Even in the Soviet Union, it was unheard of that children of the very high ranked party members would not get privileges and power - at least as long as the parent still had his (never her) high rank.

Inheritance is, by far, the best way for society to dispose of the assets of a dead person. Who else would get the estate? In the early days of the Soviet Union, they tried to abolish inheritance all together. It caused so much trouble, because they did not know what to do with everything that was left by the deceased, that they reintroduced a limited right of inheritance.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

I agree with everything you say.

If inheritance would be disallowed where you live, perhaps you can move to Sweden. Inheritance tax was abolished here a few years ago and nobody mourns it.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

So you would advocate the government telling you what you can leave to your child?????
Up until a few years ago, Louisiana had a forced heirship law and I found that to be totally unfair. Thankfully, it's changed somewhat and a child over 24 years can be written out. However, if a person dies intestate, it gets complicated if there's a spouse. Personally, I think that it's a bunch of bs but I don't write the freaking laws.
So no more than I want the government telling me what I have to leave to whom, neither do I want them putting a limit on what I can leave.

__________________





"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

You'd be surprised Mrs. M but those aren't even the worst of the laws in the land, there are states in which until a few years ago you couldn't disinherit your kids at all. Now its easing up; for example you can now disinherit your daughter if she's married...i think that was in Missisipi, not sure, can't remember exactly. In 7 states (including Hawaii) a wife is still deemed to be her husband's property. It recebtly led to a multi million dollar lawsuit for an extra marrital (adulterous) affair.

We have moved from a divine-right monarchy, where the kingdom is passed from parent to children, why not move from a democratic republic, where great wealth is passed from parent to children?

Personally I would not shed a tear if they got rid of an inherdence tax. There will alwas be someone out there that has been born "previlages" and that does not make them any less productive. Sure they can be unproductive, but they can also be productive all the same.

By Human nature there will never be a society that will abolish inheridence, its in our nature to take what is given to us.

What's so good about moving from monarchy? Why should we want to move to a society where wealth cannot be moved from parent to children?

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

DGG

I think we will be better led if our leaders obtain that position as a result of merit rather than a result of privilege.

Thank you very much for the offer. As it happens, I like some of the ways Sweden handles things. Wouldn't mind the cold, either, but my wife is a different story.

Agreed. But the fact that there isn't a nation on Earth where this is the case tells a lot about human nature. And Human nature is something that has proven nigh impossible to legislate.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Besides Lunatech's brilliant answer, I have to say:

Come back when you have a democratic leader elected upon merit only.

Democracy is not bad, but it tends to put people in office who are good at saying one-liners, not too ugly, having enough friends within the party, etc. In short, an elected leader is quite a different person from someone who is chosen based on merits.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Thank you.
Usually, the merits that politicians and leaders based on are popularity, i.e., saying the right things at the right time, being photogenic, and playing to one's base. So, in reality, the current democracy that we have is based on merit, but often the merit is being born into a family of already successful politicians (or wealthy people in general), knowing what the public wants to hear, etc.

My wife and I talked about this subject over a bottle of chardonnay (Australian), and came to the conclusion that we could fix the government with one sweeping change. We could implement a lottery system, much like jury selection, in which, if your number comes up, you are required to drop everything in your life to be a representative, senator, or president. Basically, all election-based position would be filled by ordinary people, but unlike jury selection, there would be no excuses (except, perhaps, being bed-ridden). So the people who want power, would be in the minority. And thus, the republic would be saved!!! From corruption, anyway.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).