The Ethics of "Old Money"

[AVG-JOE]

I am Independently Wealthy, my family has been Independently Wealthy since the 15th Century, that doesn't mean we don't volunteer to do what we consider a family duty, which is serve in our nations military, every Generation of my family has served in the military our other thing would be Government Service usually Intelligence or Diplomatic Service, so if you call any of that not doing anything then okay and whatever.

Am I an Elitist? Of course I am why wouldn't I not be?

But one thing I can say is that I have frequently GIVEN financial help to those I could SEE needed help and wanted ZERO in return from them, I also for two years have been paying ALL the medical bills of a male friend in Oakland, California, he has HIV and I love him obviously in a Platonic way, I love and care about him so much I personally help to keep him well and even alive. He's on this thing called antiretroviral therapy, ART, which is a special drug cocktail for those with HIV and being in America I know how expensive that's going to be for him and he needs to take these medications every day and although it was a bit complicated to do I set up a special financial fund for him, so I pay all his medical bills for these drugs he needs because I can afford to do that for him and I wanted him to not have to worry about finances, to know that he will always get his medications and so he can spend his own money on his hobbies and on other things that make him happy.

So this is what a Double Socialist then to you, I support Healthcare and I have a friend who is a San Francisco Faggot dying of HIV but instead of doing the to YOU Non-Socialist thing of DISOWNING my friend and telling him to "Fuck Off And Die Faggot" instead I pay ALL his medical bills to help keep him alive a few more years.

Since the 15th Century?!?

Nice! Color me highly impressed by the success of your lineage at the game of "Survival of The Most Fit".

Assuming 500 years of a necessary amount of hard work, luck, greed, exploitation and corruption involved in the acquisition and maintenance of such wealth over the generations, I can't help but wonder how the history of your family affects your feelings of responsibility at managing your family's treasure today.


First comparison that comes to mind is the British Royal Family.

If asked to vote on whether or not they do enough to spread the wealth that their family acquired as a direct result of Feudal Europe and Colonialism, and all the cruel bullshit that those words entail, my vote would have to be a "no".

`​

 

[AVG-JOE]

Does the history of 'Old Money' owe anything to the present?

 

[BreezeWood]

that doesn't mean we don't volunteer to do what we consider a family duty, which is serve in our nations military, every Generation of my family has served in the military our other thing would be Government Service usually Intelligence or Diplomatic Service, so if you call any of that not doing anything then okay and whatever.

we don't volunteer what we consider a family duty ... which is serve in our nations military -

and if it were the people's liberation army ... maintaining the status quo throughout history has been a primary impediment against evil within humanity's societies and most often than not, not worthy to volunteer for.

 

[AVG-JOE]

*

1. GENERAL NATURE OF NINETEENTH-CENTURY LIBERALISM (19th century = 1800's)

Liberalism is a difficult term to define. It has various shades and from time to time changes its complexion. During the nineteenth century, liberalism had developed into an ideology, a loose set of beliefs about the world and how it should be.

The roots of liberalism stretch back through the French Revolution and the Enlightenment to the seventeenth century political thoughts of John Locke and others. At the base of liberalism was a belief in individualism. Liberals optimistically believed that individuals, unaided and free from outside forces or institutions, should pursue their own interests. Individuals deserved equality before the law and the right to embark on careers open to talent. Government should be constitutional and based on popular sovereignty. The people should be represented by an elected legislature, to whom government ministers were responsible. Government should be limited in its powers, with individual freedoms as freedom of the press, of speech, and of assembly guaranteed. The role of government should be that of a passive police officer, enforcing laws and contracts. Government should interfere in economic life as little as possible, leaving that realm to private enterprise. Liberals were also anticlerical; that is, they opposed interference in government by organized religion. During the first half of the nineteenth century, liberals were usually nationalists, since nationalism at that time was primarily concerned with freeing peoples from alien rule and uniting them under one flag, and nationalism seemed consistent with popular sovereignty, constitutional government, and people's rights. Liberals, particularly during the first half of the nineteenth century, were not democrats; liberals wanted to limit the right to vote to those holding wealth and the educated. Only later in the nineteenth century did liberals begin to favor universal male suffrage.

Liberals typically came from the middle class, the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, the professionals, and the intellectuals. Their chief opponents were the vested interests of traditional society; the aristocracy, the clergy, and the military, seeking to retain their favored positions. The peasantry was still generally conservative, strongly influenced by the clergy and sometimes by the aristocracy, and not very active in politics. Liberals were sometimes contemptuous of the propertyless masses below, forming alliances with them only so far as necessary. Middle-class liberals contempt for those below them was often a mask for fear; their contempt of the aristocrats above them was tinged with envy.

Liberals stood in contrast to conservatives. Liberals were optimistic about the individual; conservatives were pessimistic. Liberals had great faith in reason; conservatives argued that reason was too abstract. Liberals favored many of the ideas and reforms of the Enlightenment and French Revolution; conservatives attacked them. Liberals valued the individual over society; conservatives felt the individual was secondary. For liberals the state was an agent of the people; for conservatives the state was a growing organism not to be tampered with.

Their chief opponents were the vested interests of traditional society; the aristocracy, the clergy, and the military, seeking to retain their favored positions. The peasantry was still generally conservative, strongly influenced by the clergy and sometimes by the aristocracy, and not very active in politics.

If nothing else, history shows that who or what a soldier serves is at least as important as their individual deeds, whether they be destructive or constructive in service objective.





*Quote clipped from: Disgusted With Conservatism, America Was Born Liberal.

 

[ding]

I am Independently Wealthy, my family has been Independently Wealthy since the 15th Century, that doesn't mean we don't volunteer to do what we consider a family duty, which is serve in our nations military, every Generation of my family has served in the military our other thing would be Government Service usually Intelligence or Diplomatic Service, so if you call any of that not doing anything then okay and whatever.

Am I an Elitist? Of course I am why wouldn't I not be?

But one thing I can say is that I have frequently GIVEN financial help to those I could SEE needed help and wanted ZERO in return from them, I also for two years have been paying ALL the medical bills of a male friend in Oakland, California, he has HIV and I love him obviously in a Platonic way, I love and care about him so much I personally help to keep him well and even alive. He's on this thing called antiretroviral therapy, ART, which is a special drug cocktail for those with HIV and being in America I know how expensive that's going to be for him and he needs to take these medications every day and although it was a bit complicated to do I set up a special financial fund for him, so I pay all his medical bills for these drugs he needs because I can afford to do that for him and I wanted him to not have to worry about finances, to know that he will always get his medications and so he can spend his own money on his hobbies and on other things that make him happy.

So this is what a Double Socialist then to you, I support Healthcare and I have a friend who is a San Francisco Faggot dying of HIV but instead of doing the to YOU Non-Socialist thing of DISOWNING my friend and telling him to "Fuck Off And Die Faggot" instead I pay ALL his medical bills to help keep him alive a few more years.

Since the 15th Century?!?

Nice! Color me highly impressed by the success of your lineage at the game of "Survival of The Most Fit".

Assuming 500 years of a necessary amount of hard work, luck, greed, exploitation and corruption involved in the acquisition and maintenance of such wealth over the generations, I can't help but wonder how the history of your family affects your feelings of responsibility at managing your family's treasure today.


First comparison that comes to mind is the British Royal Family.

If asked to vote on whether or not they do enough to spread the wealth that their family acquired as a direct result of Feudal Europe and Colonialism, and all the cruel bullshit that those words entail, my vote would have to be a "no".

`​

You know as I read your explanation for how a family can amass and maintain wealth I was amazed that there was only one positive attribute for your belief in how they were able to do so.

I'm wondering if this is how you see your success in life too. Or if you see your success in a more positive light. If so, how is it that you don't see the success of others in the same positive light?