Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

I have no specific opinion of 'the wealthy' as a whole, because generalisations are bad, m'kay.  It would be nice if they had to pay a fairer amount of tax though.

Ding ding ding.


For their wealth in particular, I believe the price of power (of any sort, including monetary) is responsibility. It is the duty of the strong to help the weak. Noblesse Oblige.

If a wealthy person is uncomfortable with that responsibility (see: Ayn Rand objectivists), then they should give up their power.

[terkiey]

I view the wealthy as wealthy.

[Hubris Incalculable]

I view the wealthy as wealthy.

Quite true. I agree whole-heartedly.

[Guardian G.I.]

I view the wealthy people (especially the super rich) as immoral narcissist sociopaths.

Anyone who does not have a billion [dollars] can go to hell!

[The Darkling Wolf]

I view the wealthy as wealthy.

Quite true. I agree whole-heartedly.

I veiw them as cheese.

[i2amroy]

For their wealth in particular, I believe the price of power (of any sort, including monetary) is responsibility. It is the duty of the strong to help the weak. Noblesse Oblige.

If a wealthy person is uncomfortable with that responsibility (see: Ayn Rand objectivists), then they should give up their power.

So the answer then is to be the extreme upper edge of the middle class. Rich enough to enjoy the powers of wealth, but not so rich that you are obliged to care for those less fortunate!

As for me, I'm fine viewing the rich people as rich, and I know for certain that while some of them may be jerks, the rest are not. (My town has a large rich population, and they contribute immensely to our school music programs and other fine arts around the community)

[Vattic]

I veiw them as cheese.

Eat the Rich?

[kaenneth]

"He's so rich, he wears two monocles."

[kaijyuu]

For their wealth in particular, I believe the price of power (of any sort, including monetary) is responsibility. It is the duty of the strong to help the weak. Noblesse Oblige.

If a wealthy person is uncomfortable with that responsibility (see: Ayn Rand objectivists), then they should give up their power.

So the answer then is to be the extreme upper edge of the middle class. Rich enough to enjoy the powers of wealth, but not so rich that you are obliged to care for those less fortunate!

In serious, it's proportionate. An upper middle class would still have responsibility to those less fortunate, just less responsibility than say, Bill Gates level rich. I'm not exactly wealthy, but I'm better off than some, and thus I have a responsibility toward them.

[Scoops Novel]

my thoughts exactly. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to ring true much.

[MaximumZero]

I don't have a view on the rich, but they certainly seem to have a view on me.

[Svarte Troner]

Considering the possibility of a future where we'll all be slaves to feudalistic mega-corporations, I think it's about time we warm up to our future (or current) overlords, the wealthy. 

But yeah, I'll throw in my hat with the violent anarchist revolution crowd.

[scriver]

For me, it depends on what they spend the money on. There is no way in hell I can ever see buying, say, a golden diamond'd chandelier for several millions as something moral.

[nenjin]

There is one thing I do kind of agree with, that middle class people generally are concerned with being comfortable, safe and entertained. That's what motivates them. As opposed to being consumed by the need for MOAR. If rich people are never satisfied with what they have and drives them to try harder, do more, succeed more often, spend less time seeking pleasure and more time seeking wealth....more power to them.

It's when they drag down the economy with their shenanigans, ruin other people's lives in pursuit of profit, ruin the environment and dominate our political system so that no dissenting voices will be given weight....is when their "never satisfied" mentality has become morally untenable. A person's desire for more than they have currently cannot carry more weight than the happiness and comfort of those around them, that's not an equal trade. Especially if the net result gives absolutely nothing back.

If rich people got rich in a vacuum, no one would care. But their wealth, whether they want to admit it or not, depends directly on the rest of humanity. Workers, consumers, investors, governments.....all of these are a part of them becoming wealthy, in one way or another.

[Flying Dice]

Basically I see them as lucky bastards.

With emphasis on the bastards part.

No, no. If they were bastards, they wouldn't be able to inherit their vast fortunes. 


But yes, Noblesse Oblige on a sliding scale. And for the (as mentioned) Randians and their ilk,

I'll throw in my hat with the violent anarchist revolution crowd.

Better a clean wipe with the recognition that you're essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater and hoping you get a better baby next time--that is to say, acknowledging that you're getting rid of all social order and working towards building a better one. Because let's be honest, a true anarcho-communistic society can't exist because of inherent human flaws, namely greed (for power, control, treasure, etc.) Which is, incidentally, why I have such a problem with libertarians of the non-Social Darwinist type: they get as far as the "Let's get rid of government", but don't bother with "Let's get rid of the social order that is at the heart of the problem", and that they essentially shrug their shoulders regarding the aftermath, as if to say, "Eh, someone will work it out. I'm sure it'll be fine."

In other words, destroying society is a good choice if and when doing so has a greater chance of resulting in a functional, relatively free and fair society than attempts at internal reform.