Conservatives: Do you believe people with money should run things?

Great Debates
21

:dubious: Unpack this:

“Other elites” (than money elites) “are not better.”

If this is literally true, than no other system of elite in existence is better than a money elite. Possibly worse, but not better. That is to say, there is at this time no successful alternative system of choosing elites that is better than a money elite. Money elites are the best we have, if not the best we can get.

Is that really what you mean to say?

That seems absurd to me. What about a religious/ethical elite? Or a scientific elite? Wouldn’t they make more ethically informed decisions than–excuse the characterization–a bunch of acquisitive graspers? Why should elites be defined by wealth instead of by understanding?

22

This is completely incorrect and backward. In a free market economic system, everybody has a say in society, including the poor. If the poor desire to purchase cans of kidney beans, society will respond by producing and selling cans of kidney beans. If the poor change their minds and decide that they desire to purchase pinto beans, society will respond by producing and selling pinto beans. If the poor switch to chili beans, society will give them chili beans. On the other hand, if the government decides to seize the means of production and decide what sorts of beans will be produced, then the poor no longer have any say in the question; only a handful of rich bureaucrats do.

Look at almost any economic question that gets debated these days. Regardless of whether it’s soft drinks in New York City, health plans that don’t include birth control, or corn ethanol is gasoline, conservatives support allowing everyone to choose. In other words, they support letting everyone have a say. On the other hand, liberals support letting wealthy bureaucrats make the decision and shutting the poor out of the decision making process.

23

ITR, your examples are boilerplate, your reasoning is prefabricated, and your conclusions are pure cant.

I especially don’t appreciate your hiding behind the words “freedom and democracy” to avoid explaining yourself. These can be fine and noble concepts; you used them as smokescreens.

However, I won’t actually ask you to explain yourself. It wouldn’t just violate your principles. It would probably overtax your logic.

24

What’s the alternative? If you’re not wealthy, you can’t run an effective campaign to get elected. Unless we go to a random selection like jury duty, the people elected are always going to be the ones wealthy enough to campaign - saying “no” to the OP would be tantamount to denying reality. At that point, sure, let’s give the job to the most qualified people, regardless of their ability to represent themselves and their views in the public sphere. I’m sure we’ll all feel really good when someone we’ve never even heard of is appointed by some nebulous mechanism for determining fitness for office.

25

ITR champion, what question did you hear? If the one in the OP, how do you think your answer was relevant?

What I want to say: When the poor want steak instead of beans, do they have the money to buy it? If not, why are the poor so poor they’re living on beans?

What needs saying: You don’t have to have a command economy to have redistribution, or social democracy, or worker participation in business. You certainly don’t have to have a command economy to have “different elites” running the government.

Why, in an argument between two Western democratic liberal (yes, classically liberal) capitalist factions, does one keep trying to argue against a caricature of Brezhnev-era Eastern Bloc central planning? [And should I make that question my sig?]

26

Do you have any reason for not viewing what I wrote as true, or do you just want to insult me?

What exactly do you want me to explain?

27

… Why would these alternative elites being more ethical? Human history does not tend to support the notion that educational, ideological, or religious elite is that preferable. You may be right, or perhaps we might turn it around and put up reasons a money elite would be even better, but I don’t honestly see your logical chain here.

I should also point out that (a) most Republican politicians are not megawealthy businessmen. On the local level they may have a successful small business. On the national level, however, they tend to be lawyers and investors like their democrat counterparts. As far as the Senate goes, it appears that Republicans have about 40% of the wealth of the aveerage Democrat.

28

Beware of Doug asked “Do you believe people with money should run things? If not, who should? Either way, why?” I responded directly to that and to other questions that he asked later in the thread.

In the United States, virtually all of them do. In many third-world countries with much lower levels of economic freedom, the poor are much worse off.

I have never mentioned a command economy or Brezhnev-era Eastern Bloc central planning. I mentioned three issues at the end of my second post: bans on large soft drinks, mandates that all health plans cover birth control, and corn ethanol requirements in gasoline. The latter two are nationwide policies in the USA while the first was recently implemented in New York City. Thus all three examples are taken directly from a Western democratic liberal nation.

29

But I think the Ivy League Liberals and the Fortune 500 Conservatives can agree on one thing: How the Hell did celebrities become political figures?

30

OK, since I am still presumably one of the board’s conservatives (though much less so than ever before), I will step up and say yes, people with money should run things. A few reasons:

  1. People under financial pressure are highly susceptible to bribery and other ethical transgressions. Not that rich people aren’t, but they at least have the wherewithal to decline a $50,000 bribe if they so choose, whereas that could more than double a poor person’s income and is as a practical matter much harder to decline.

  2. Wealth is, generally speaking, an indicator of success. One would hardly argue that Barack Obama, for instance, didn’t work his way to the top. Someone making six figures a year typically either worked his way up or paid his dues in school, working hard to get noticed.

  3. If you give poor people the ability to vote themselves the treasury, it stands to reason that they will do exactly that.

Now, there are lots of shades of gray to that answer which can be fleshed out later. For instance, what about the middle class? I have no issue with that. I suppose my answer is best stated as people who are economically independent should be in charge, whatever their income level. But poor people? Would you want someone who has been largely unsuccessful in their lives telling you how to live yours? It simply makes no sense.

I suppose the point you’re driving at is that money dominates our political system to a fault. I do consider that a failing, and I would like to see that change inasmuch as we have the ability to change it, but nevertheless money is the primary indicator of success, and as such someone with it is vastly preferable to someone without it when it comes to governance, in my opinion. I’d rather have Mitt Romney than Joe Blow the McDonald’s cashier running the show.

31

Certainly not to others’ detriment, but we have laws for that. You can’t better yourself by stealing or defrauding.

32

Sure you can. One of the reasons we have so many laws is because people constantly find shady, but not-yet-illegal ways to defraud others. An example would be the used-car dealers’ tactics that prompted many ‘lemon laws’ around the country. It gets even more blatantly “hurry up, they’re going to make this illegal soon” in some cases.

Sometimes even existing laws have no real power to stop the corporate criminals. Microsoft got nailed for anti-trust violations, but the fines they paid come NOWHERE NEAR the profits that their monopoly-creating tactics created for them.

With enough initiative, hard work, and sociopathy, it’s quite possible to get very rich doing things that you know will be illegal soon, or already are.

How is that not acting in bad faith? It goes on anyway, though, which is why we shouldn’t let businesses run amok. They often do, though. (see Microsoft example, above)

33

Well, that’s the problem with government being filled with an academic elite. Most modern industries are too complex to regulate. Heck, they were in the New Deal era, which is why instead of just trying top down regulation, FDR had industries write their own codes, which the government would then force them to abide by.

The NRA is a prime example of trying to make business work for the betterment of society rather than for raw profit. and it was a pretty awful idea:

34

The government is my boogeyman.

Seriously, why does anybody - rich or poor - need to “run” anything? What should there be to “run”?

According to our constitution, the government should have limited and enumerated powers.

“Running Things” should be limited to national defence, protection of property rights and the rule of law. That’s about it.

It shouldn’t really matter if they are rich, or poor, or green Rastafarians, or left-handed relief pitchers for my local AA baseball team. There shouldn’t be that much that we the people need somebody to “run” other than the above.

Everything else is a collection of voluntary transactions between consenting parties. I don’t need anybody to “run” that. And neither should you.

35

This is not true. Government is the only entity that can legally “control” you without your consent. For example, no matter how powerful the Coca Cola company is, they can’t throw you in jail without government. Can’t take your money without your consent without government. Can’t take your land without consent. Etc.

Everyone should have a say in what they themselves are doing. That’s it.

36

You have a pretty rosy view of the legal system. And BTW, it’s government too.

37

Good try foolsguinea. But I don’t think the conservatives on the Dope feel any great need to explain themselves to you, or indeed anyone. The faithful do not question; instead, as some Bush administration skunk trumpeted, they “create reality.”

Finally, some are asking what I meant by “running things.” I’ll put it bluntly:
Should people with money have power over people without money?

Once again, don’t fall back on natural law and say it’s just true and there’s no point in discussing it.
When should they? When shouldn’t they? What’s good about it? What’s bad about it?

38

Pardon me if I say that’s still not very clear.

First, what exactly do you mean by “power”?

The power to make all the rules and dictate all of society? In that case, they would in effect cease to be rich because of money, because money has no value next to power in such societies. In any authoritarian society, money is largely irrelevant. Those with wealth but no power are at the mercy of those who have power. The powerful can take whatever they want, and so money in and of itself becomes only a means of making friends and paying off those in power.

If, on the other hand, you mean “Should the wealthy be allowed to persuade, if they can, a majority of their fellow citizens to support them for some public office, the authority of which is governed by the rule of law and the limits of constitutional, federal, government?” - then I am all for it. I don’t see why should or would be given a free pass into such offices, but I recognize that people with a substantial amount of wealth would have the necessary leisure time to devote themselves to campaigns instead of earning a living, and they will tend to form a substantial majority of those actually elected to significant and important offices.

This also leads into the question of “What do you mean by ‘Rich’, anyhow?” Do you mean asking whether multi-billionaires should rule the world? I don’t see why we’d want that, although multi-billionaires tend as a rule to be able to actually deal with other people on a contractual basis and are therefore probably better than the strongmen who rule much of the world.
I disagree with Airman Doors that well-off people are less likely to accept bribes. As a matter of fact, I believe that most all legislative and many executive candidates take implicit bribes, and frequently explicit ones int he more corrupt regions of the country. On the other hand, in this country it’s usually kept to a tolerable minimum and usually boils down to the kind of cronyism that humanity can never quite end.

As an example (and no, I’m not “picking on Obama” here, but he’s the current president and will have to take his licks), the Solyndra mess wasn’t about suitcases full of cash. But at the same time, it’s very likely that old friendships betwen the major Solyndra backers and several highly-placed White House staffers played a part in opening the money spigots. I’m sure they thought it was a good idea - and I’m eqaully sure that their personal relationships played a huge part in making certain they did think it was a good idea, and ignoring the urgent warnings by the departments under them.

This kind of thing occurs all the time, and it’s more or less impossible to get rid of. Politicians reward their friends and supports, and those friends and supports keep giving back. Frankly, I’d prefer to go back to the days when a certain amount of patronage was permitted and considered accepable and normal, so as to have cronyism be an open an known quantity rather a hidden wound on the Republic, while tainting it with rank hypocrisy.

39

Thanks, smiling bandit, that was an intelligent and reasonable answer.

40

Money is a significant factor, but it shouldn’t be the deciding one.

Remember the big blow-up a few months ago at the University of Virginia, where the Board of Visitors tried to purge the President of the University? The board was full of real-estate millionaires who got their seats via political contributions to the winning gubernortorial candidate (one commentator referred to them as “gamblers with poor impulse control who confused a lucky roll of the dice with genuine wisdom and virtue”), whereas the president was a skilled manager, delegator and survivor. No paupers in this mix; my impression, though I can’t cite it, is that the president came from old money and the board members, though richer, did not. Thus brouhaha was a definite clash between old and new money sensibilities.

Raising money from other people is a skill all successful politicians have. It’s a necessary skill, both for doing the job and for getting elected repeatedly. Sadly, it’s not a skill poor people have; If they develop it later in life, they are by definition no longer poor.