Philosophy Now Forum

I used to find the U.S. political system to be the most democratic on Earth, for there are three fully-elected, seemingly of equal strength, bodies of government. However, I’m not any longer so sure, now that I witness how but one of those bodies, Congress, barely dominated by Republican representatives, holds both the (Democrat dominated) Senate and (Democrat) White House—as well as a majority of voting Americans who obviously chose them/him to govern—blatantly hostage. Unbelievably, the Republican-held Congress insists that gratuitously-rich Americans be allowed to only pay (in some cases) less than half the tax-rate of that paid by likely-struggling middle-income Americans! Why? ‘Because the very rich create jobs for so many Americans!’ Oh, I guess that explains why the U.S. unemployment rate is the highest it’s been (from what I’ve read) in quite a while. Rather, yes, the rich create jobs—McJobs, for Southeast Asians, at one to two dollars per 16-hour day. Yet, even if gratuitously-wealthy American businessmen do create millions of jobs, it’s but for their own gain: The epitome of capitalism dictates that when an employer invests in (pays a wage to) an employee—a living, breathing and often-vulnerable person—the employer expects a return from that investment of, say, 50-100 percent.
On another matter, exactly how does, in a moral sense, one businessperson “earn,” say, $100 billion, as Bill Gates came close to “earning” for some time? (Albeit, he’s now giving some back to society via some philanthropy. And, no, the "genius" Gates' computer contribution to society does not come even close to him truly "earning" such a superfluous sum of profit.) One would think that to “earn” so many billions of dollars, a gratuitously rich person would be performing some super feat for humanity or the much-wanting eco-systems around most of the world; eliminating starvation, or alleviating a great deal of the mass suffering—e.g., through the mass distribution of much-needed medicines—occurring 24/7 around so much of this world.
Yet the multi-billionaires are not doing anything of the sort, regardless of the fact that they could so easily do so.

Forgive me if I answer the question directly.
The moral sense in which a person can earn $100billion is the moral position of might is right. In a country that valorises wealth, those that achieve a certain level are enabled to buy all the political representation they need. Those that achieve a certain level reach a point where they no longer have to pay tax.
American democracy is the greatest in the world, because they say so. They say it the loudest. They say it backed by al those dollars. So it must be true.
As for the separation of powers. I think you are under a misapprehension. The Supreme Court of the USA is loaded with political appointments. This is corrupt as there is no separation between the legislature and the judiciary. But then then as we have seen there is very little difference between the political parties, and without that there is no democracy at all.
Wealth is what talks in the US, and the wealthy are not capable of representing the poor, the dispossessed, the hungry; the unemployed and the sick without insurance.

.











................................................DEAD. NUTS. ON.







Chaz, you Rock!





.

Jeno Paulucci became a millionaire through hard work (like many affluent business people). http://www.tcbmag.com/halloffame/minnes ... 260p1.aspx

I met him at John DeSanto's wedding. John came from a poor family, his father being a drunk. Paulucci paid John's expenses through college and law school. John has had a distinguished career as a prosecutor (except that in the five trials that we had, I got three not guilty jury verdicts!) John was recently appointed to the trial court.

You critics (envy?) of the wealthy never mention that the latter take risks and work hard They are all "gratuitously wealthy".


P.S. At the wedding, Paulucci was drunk and loud, unpleasant. After that evening I understood why the old money Duluth people never admitted him to their society.

P.P.S. Another successful hard-working Duluthian is David Oreck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Oreck

"Oreck also lectures pro bono at universities around the U.S., seeking to inspire young entrepreneurs and businesspeople.[6] He tells his audiences "[You can] see I'm no genius. I didn't get started until I was 40. I did it. You can do it. Only in America could this happen."[2]"

To some extent I think you've got a point. Not with the working hard part because many people work hard and some of the hardest working people around earn the least money for it so working hard has only ever had a minor, at best, influence on wealth. However, I do believe that many leftist economic theories have a problem with incentives that are necessary to encourage people to take risks. The problem though is that excessive wealth does tend to come with excessive political power so whilst I'm willing to debate what counts as "excessive" I think chaz makes some very good points.

one dollar at a time

how does a person, in a moral sense, feel entitled to the property and labor of another?

-Imp

The system is geared so that Bill Gates IS entitled to the labour of another.

I don't know, ask a capitalist?

Cheers Matey!

Recently, I was wondering if the Koch brothers (who fund political groups on the right) had wealth comparable to George Soros ( who funds political groups on the left). What a pleasant surprise: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/21/ ... lnk3|97669

the problem with that is capitalists do not feel entitled... they pay the wages which the employee agrees to accept...

-Imp

.











...........................






.

John wrote:


I think that this is a very good point and worth discussing. I'd like to take issue, if I may, with the assumption that economic activity necessarily involves risk. Put simply, incentive is only necessary in a risk-based economy, but an economy does not necessarily have to be based on - or even include - risk.

Alongside this, what about individuals and groups who take risks but not for financial gain? We could argue that while risk might be a necessary (and even inescapable) element of existence it does not need to operate as the foundation of a monetary system.

We could even go so far as to think about the 'risk of risk'; i.e. the possibility that a risk-based economy is itself a risk and not a concrete fact.

None of this makes risk a fact. Risk is a post hoc attribution of the probability of failure. It is not a natural category.