Discussion in 'Politics' started by JBeukema, May 13, 2011.
Yes and no.
Yes, because the above chart is sort of similar to what's going on.
NO, because in feudal times, the Aristos felt SOME OBLIGATION to take care of their peasant class.
It's the end point of libertarianism. The less powerful will have to "take it or leave it" from the powerful, because unlike the rose-colored outlook of the die-hard libertarians, human nature dictates that unchecked by some greater power, the strong will take advantage of the weak.
The role of the federal government IMO should be to keep the playing field level for all, and I think that was the initial intent. The rich and powerful have been allowed to corrupt the system that was originally designed to protect the weak from the exploitation. The biggest problem IMO is that too many people have been duped into believing that they are a part of the rich and powerful, and that they have the same freedoms and opportunities. In actuality we are seeing now that is not the case. I wonder if all those retirees who thought they were part of the privilaged class for so long, and voted for legislation the actual rich and powerful wanted, are now happy with their choices? As they watch their retirement packages and pensions come under attack by the people they voted in.
Copyright manifold 2011
You guys really need to stop being obsessed with corporations.
you mean reentering ,
unions stopped that but now we are on our why back to it
Separate names with a comma.