|
Frank
|
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 18 th, 2025 at 7:41pm: Frank wrote on Jan 18 th, 2025 at 5:29pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 18 th, 2025 at 3:37pm: Frank wrote on Jan 18 th, 2025 at 3:33pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 18 th, 2025 at 3:17pm: Frank wrote on Jan 18 th, 2025 at 1:33pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 18 th, 2025 at 10:14am: Being super-rich is not a synonym for being an oligarch.
Tyranny, as I was saying, is monarchy exercising the rule of a master over the political society; oligarchy is when men of property have the government in their hands; democracy, the opposite, when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers. And here arises the first of our difficulties, and it relates to the distinction drawn. For democracy is said to be the government of the many. But what if the many are men of property and have the power in their hands? In like manner oligarchy is said to be the government of the few; but what if the poor are fewer than the rich, and have the power in their hands because they are stronger? Aristotle, Politics, book 3. So, according to Aristotle, you must already be a man of property before you can become an oligarch. No doubt even in ancient Greece, you could also be a man of property and not an oligarch. Oligarch means a few rich individuals have the government in their hands. Democracy means rule by the many, the poor. in the 21st century, democratic rule includes more than the poor - i.e. the unpropertied, in Aristotlean speak. Unpropertied = poor. So, those who rent, or lease are poor in the 21st century? What bozo angle is THAT? No. Some renters are mega rich. If I were mega rich I wouldn't buy anything, I would just live in the Ritz around the world. What kind of moronic gotcha are you angling for in your usual gauche way?
|
Forum
Pages: 
