I articulated that specific sentence with hyperbole.

is it wrong that people advocate their own interest?

No-no, of course not, but afluence is a dangerous thing.

- A tool that can wreak havoc upon even the mightiest empire.

They, the wealthy, have the right in human nature to preserve their self-interest. But their interest does not represent what the people truly needs, - Which is the government's purpose in the first place; serving the people.

i dont think theres a necessity that "the people's" interests and the interest of individuals, even extremely influential individuals, must be at odds. that being said obviously there can arise situations where they do and i think that beyond all else the most important priority as "a people" is to figure out how to avoid those situations and create means of acting together for mutual interest in a beneficial way

The point that the state never wants to get to, is the point where politicians and the 1% mix, that is when you achieve maximum corruption and abuse of power. Therefor, the state must have certain regulations that keep the STATE over the individuals who only seek their own profit. Don't get me wrong, i'm no socialist / Communist, but I realize the importance of protectionism and restrictions.

realistically the "1%" and the politicians are always going to mix and they even need to, it would be stupid for instance to make provisions making cars less expensive if car manufacturers are telling you it wouldnt make a difference or even make it more expensive, for example. I agree the state needs regulations and provisions but with the recognition that individuals will always, in some shape or form, pursue their own profit to the exclusion of all else and that isnt a bad thing.

fuck protectionism tho

We agree. People will always pursue their own profit. But are you really willing to make the bold statement that what's best for the top of the hierarchy is best for the people?

in general if the system they are participating in is well constructed, yes

if the system is poorly constructed then perhaps not

People will always pursue their own profit, even if it means exploitation.

i agree, so then the emphasis should be in creating a system that allows people to profit without exploitation

Of course. That is when you need restrictions, to assure that the certain people with power do not abuse them; both politicians and richmen.

We agree?

we do, but its also important to realize that changes to the system dictate who those people who are politicians and richmen are

if your changes merely change who is on top, without changing the actions they're incentivized towards, there will always be a conflict

That's why we should have a nobility :p

i can accept a kind of "nobility of merit", hereditary nobility?

fuck no

just because your dad was a good guy doesnt mean you are

I can see what you mean.

appreciate you're just putting it out there and i get the appeal, hereditary entitlements just a bugbear of mine

As a Monarchical European, Royality and Nobility is close to heart.

Being raised to praise your King is something I can't explain.

minimum wage across the board

tax the rich 99%

**Communist Alert!**

Tax everyone 99%*

Oh, that's... Interesting.

That's pretty good @el pebble

@Deleted User and i get why, it would sadden me if the english monarchy went away and obviously theres alot of history and sentimental value put up around a certain family and those traditions but the problem is that hereditary nobility often invests power in those least capable of using it and most interested in abusing it

Genetics are extremely important and nobility is nothing but naturally important genetic families, and they will naturally fall out of noblehood by decay in due time if need be

if you needed to earn your family title id be more interested

genetics are meaningless

Genesis 1:27

learn Imago Dei scummy pagan

They still didn't give you the tag, here

you give me a role like this but ur the mexican pagan using fraktur text like ur some aryan

taco odin assblasted