philosopher

I am mainly speaking about the westernized northern european and North American world here:

It is said we all believe in democracy. But when the economic elite (those with lots of wealth) feels threatened, they want to limit the right to vote for those who need government welfare.

They are using the excuse that the right to vote for other people's money isn't a democratic right. Meanwhile they are using the excuse of loosening the tax on the wealthy by cutting down on government welfare programs by saying that the wealthy are those who produce the capital.

I think this is kind of hypocritical: You can't defend democratic (rule by the people) rights by threatening with non-democratic measures (moving capital out of the country). Please note I was not using the word "anti" but "non". It is because it isn't directly against the democratic principle to move abroad, but neither is it a democratic thing to do.

But the very threat of doing so to influence politicians to favor the wealthy elite is anti-democratic, because such a threat can only be imposed by the few, not the many. If a common peasant or worker uses the same threat "I will move abroad if you cut the welfare!" the western governemt can care as much about this as the Haitian government can care about a fart made in China: Not a bit!

This is why the wealthy elite is THE actual cause for the eventual lack of democratic control, and when the wealthy elite is taking advantage of democratic means such as the right to own private property to exploit the very same democracy that gives them these rights, it becomes a problem.

That's my opinion. And I hope this is the opinion of the millions of unemployed, poor, disabled or people of old age of the entire Westernized world too!

I suggest some rather drastic changes to ensure democracy if people really believe in democratic control of the government:
One-time State confiscation of private property of the entire wealthy elite. The state will then lease the property to lots of smaller private enterprises to create enough competition and ensure lots of jobs.

Rongo

This specific issue seems to be more a European problem than a North American problem, but in a democratic society anybody certainly has the right to pick up and leave if they want to. Also, although democracy does involve majority rule, it can only work if it also respects minority rights, whether that minority be the unemployed, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, OR the wealthy.

philosopher

The problem is that the wealthy wants to limit the democratic rights of the unemployed the poor and the disabled - through the use of democratic processes.

Rongo

That's all part of the give-and-take of the democratic process. Any minority group is going to tend to favor themselves. The key is to try to compromise and work together and strike an acceptable balance. It will never be perfect for everybody, but what form of government ever is?

tjadams

Your comment reminded me of a passage from Thomas Jefferson's first
Inaugural address (1801).

"All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases
to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights,
which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

philosopher

The problem is that in the democracy, the minority of the elite is fooling the majority of the middle classes into oppressing the minority of the weak.
I suggest eliminating the elite altogether through deprivation of their statehood/citizenship and kick them out of the country for good. If they don't wish to contribute to the society, they shouldn't be part of it either.
The elite is the true leaches of society. Not those who lost their ability to work due to unemployment or illness.

The workers are wage slaves.

tjadams

Your whole theory is flawed. What is the threshold of 'elite'?
What would happen of one of the 'minority of the weak' worked hard,
moved up the social ladder, and became one of the 'elite?' Would they
then be jettisoned out of the nation? What would motivate the 'middle class'
or the 'minority of the weak' to ever better themselves when they know
the reward for success is banishment or having their efforts stripped?
You would create a hand out-nation or welfare society with no motivation
to be successful.

philosopher

I know that people who are wealthy have probably worked their way to the top. Fine. They can use their money on luxuries and to other stuff - EXCEPT! - using it for gaining political power.

Political power MUST either be neutral (dictatorship or the knowledgeable, whoever that may be) OR purely democratical, whereby it is not the amount of money that counts, but the the amount of good will.

Rongo

The United States and Europe have massive social welfare programs to help the "minority of the weak". Who do you think funds those programs?


I assume you're going to take their possessions first, before doing this?


Please don't tell me that you're not aware that many of the "elite" got to be that way by building successful businesses that employ the unemployed and cure the ill.

Do you know what a slave is?

philosopher

So motivation should be based on who can gain most political power?
No way! This will inevitably be abused. That's how the Mafia and other gangs are working. We shouldn't have a mobocracy, but a DEMOCRACY!

Its fine with me if by working hard you can get luxuries like red wine and stuff like this.
But political power must remain neutral of money.