[norad]

Has anyone ever wondered if the world would be a different place if we didn't elect crazed lunatics into power? Think about it for a minute. Most of these people come from well to do backgrounds, usually have a fortune already, and it seems they are all god damn mental! Nothing concerns them but the dollar bill. It's a piece of PAPER FOR CHRIST SAKE!

Would the world be different if we elected average joes into power? Would it be more peaceful, or would it be more chaotic then what it already is. Would the average joe eventually get this sickness? Any comments?

[xerxes]

I suppose one could pull out the famous line that "absolue power corrupts absolutely", but I assume you've heard it.

Should average joes be in power? Depends on which joes. But overall, probably not. There are probably more complexitites to elected office than we realize.

As to your first paragraph norad, I don't toally agree with your statements. Sure there are a lot of politicians who worship the dollar, but that is mostly a North American phenomenon. Also, not every politician is a son of privilege. Take the president of Brazil for example. Luis Inacio Lula da Silva grew up in one of the poorest neighboorhoods in Rio de Janiero and now he's the president. The reeason a lot of politicians are rich is becuase it takes a good amount of money to run a campaign these days (especially in western democracies).

[norad]

$1:

But overall, probably not. There are probably more complexitites to elected office than we realize.

Maybe, maybe not. Is it really complex or is it really easy? I don't know.

I do understand that some do not come from wealthy to do families.

You didn't answer the one question though, xerxes. Are they all nut jobs? Just seems to me that the more money someone has, the more eccentric they become. In otherwords, nut jobs. Rebuttal? Comments?

[Robair]

xerxes xerxes:

Also, not every politician is a son of privilege. Take the president of Brazil for example. Luis Inacio Lula da Silva grew up in one of the poorest neighboorhoods in Rio de Janiero and now he's the president.

Then there's politicians like Arnold. He's rich, but made every dollar himself. Born to a middle-to-lower class family in Austria he was a self made millionar before he ever acted in a movie.

Politicians like him would be alright, too. Experienced it all from working as a brick-layer to making million dollar business deals...

[xerxes]

Good point Rob.

But back to norad's question: are all rich people "nut jobs"? Certainly not. At least, I don't think so. Though there are always shining examples of money corrupting people. Guys like Howard Hughes for example.

But there a large number of rich people who are sane, rational individuals. People who donate large amounts of money to charity.

[xerxes]

Good point Rob.

But back to norad's question: are all rich people "nut jobs"? Certainly not. At least, I don't think so. Though there are always shining examples of money corrupting people. Guys like Howard Hughes for example.

But there a large number of rich people who are sane, rational individuals. People who donate large amounts of money to charity.

[norad]

Really? I think the stats suggest that most people that donate money to charity are the middle class and the poor. That's how the rich stay rich. Since, I can't recall the exact figures, 95% of the wealth in the world is controlled by 5% of the population, and we have people living in the streets, millions of children living in poverty, in this country I might add, and millions starving in Africa, I would submit to you this is why I do not agree with the rosey picture you painted.

Howard Hughes - nut job for sure. Michael Jackson - nut job for sure. Bauxbaum, I can't remember his first name, but a millionaire in London, ON that had his wife killed - nut job, I met the guy before he had his wife murdered, trust me, he's out in left field. The big Arnie, well, if I look at how this man acts with other senators, I have to say, he is a nut job too. "Don't be a girly man." As funny as that is, I have to question the man's intelligence and sanity. Only 10 year olds say things like that. Maybe it was the roids.

Well, I'm not trying to argue here, trying to give you an idea of why I asked the question, and why I think a lot of rich people are nut jobs. I do know there are people with money that donate to charities, but not enough do so. Cold callous individuals I would say.

If we continue to let crazed rich lunatics run countries, the world will never change; it's the way I see it. And if we have people that suggest it wouldn't work to have a guy in power that only made 30K a year, we will never see if it changes for the better, will we?

It wouldn't work if an average joe was in power anyway. It was a trick question. The boys in the back room, the guys with all the money, would be the average joes' handlers; as they are of Bush, Martin, etc.

[-Mario-]

Lets say we do it the Mensa way...
Only the Higher IQ should vote and rule a country....

How would that tip the scale

[Rev_Blair]

That's not the other end of the scale though, Mario. The other end of the scale is people who put the well-being of people before personal wealth.

The reason we have rich nutbags running so many countries is that the corporations put them there. They are then beholden to the corporate agenda. That's true of the mainstream media now as well, so there's nobody to keep these people honest at all.

That's why Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian movement scare the living crap out of George Bush. The poor people have taken control of an oil-producing country and now they're spending money on things like education and healthcare. To do it they are actually charging the oil companies real money.

[-Mario-]

Look more like a triangle to me...

THis is more like the average joe, doing his job, keeping his elected head of state in line. I haven't read up on Chavez, but sounds like he his doing a good job (or he is closely monitored and kept in check). He his putting the money where it should be... to the people.

And, I was more refering to the fact that Mensa think that only an elite group should govern. THey just annoy me, only the mighty intellect should rule this planet... to put it to an extreme. Plus you can study for their test. In high school, I had a teacher who was part of Mensa. He would bring some earlier annual tests for us to do. At the end of the year I would average 140. My highest score was 160-166. During those tests, you are timed , the fastest you are done, the higher the score. That teacher tried hard to get some of us to try out. I just didn't believe in his philosophy and what Mensa stands for.

[norad]

I'd also like to add one more thing. No one picked up on this. The rich and affluent are the minority in this country, and in this world. Why in Christ sake would sheeple, ahem, people, let a minority rule over the majority? Does that make any God damn sense? Not to me.

[norad]

I'd also like to add one more thing. No one picked up on this. The rich and affluent are the minority in this country, and in this world. Why in Christ sake would sheeple, ahem, people, let a minority rule over the majority? Does that make any God damn sense? Not to me.

[norad]

I'd also like to add one more thing. No one picked up on this. The rich and affluent are the minority in this country, and in this world. Why in Christ sake would sheeple, ahem, people, let a minority rule over the majority? Does that make any God damn sense? Not to me.

[xerxes]

$1:

I'd also like to add one more thing. No one picked up on this. The rich and affluent are the minority in this country, and in this world. Why in Christ sake would sheeple, ahem, people, let a minority rule over the majority? Does that make any God damn sense? Not to me.

Those are very good questions norad. To answer them is to philosophize on the nature of political relationships between leaders and the led. I would suggest you read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan for some insight. Also, try reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract.

As to your question of why rich people rule the roost all the time, I say this: that's the nature of capitalism. In capitalism, there will always be people are particularily adept at making money and there will always be people adept at not making money. Again, a book I reccommend reading Adam Smith's On the Wealth of Nations. But the only way to correct such a disproportionate accumulation of wealth is to take it all away, which is , of course, Communism. As you may have noticed, there are a few people on these forums who have a problem with any sort of idea that even smacks of Communism. Aside from Communism, the other way to redistribute the wealth would be to tax the rich heavily and use the revenues to fund welfare and EI programs.

[Rev_Blair]

There are steps between all those places though, Xerxes. Capitalism doesn't work, communism doesn't work, but there is a workable scale in between. Canada spent a fair bit of the last century moving away from what was very much a plutocracy. We instituted social programs, labour laws, and a minimum wage. We shifted the tax burden to corporations and the very wealthy.

It was working fairly well. We had a growing middle class, a rising quality of life, we became educated and technologically advanced. Then we changed the way we produced wealth (ask Scape about that...he's better at explaining it than I am) and, when that led to rising debt, started giving everything to the wealthy and the corporations while shifting the tax burden back onto the Canadian people.

The real problem is that we put the capitalists in control of things that have no profitability. They keep telling us to run the country like a business, but the country isn't a business, it's more like a household.