Don't be sorry, I stand corrected. That's 8.3 million out of how many of the population. I will look it up.
Thanks ysbel & BeatrixFan.
I have learned to be grateful for being able to live safely and for the most part freely and not have to be concerned about being beaten while I walk down the street minding my own business. I vividly remember when that was not the case.
I understand Beatrixfan, I was absolutely CONVINCED when I graduated from college and I do mean the day that I did, that within 48 hours I would be receiving multiple phone calls and letters in the mail box with job offers, I had also decided and this was 1980, that I would accept the FIRST ONE that came in that offered me $75,000.00 a year. To my astonishment, NOT ONE!!
I was also convinced that within 2 at tops 5 years with my generation hitting the scene there would be a DRAMATIC overhaul in society, fairness, equality and opportunity would reign supreme, somehow it didn't happen.
I was also certain that gay people would at last, by 1985 at the very latest, receive full legal equality in the US. It was 2000 when the US Supreme Court finally ruled that states (including my home state of Texas) could not make consensual sex between adults criminal. I am still waiting for something approaching equality where I live in my legal standing and that of my relationship.
The idealist in me believes that we [the people] have the power to effect change. We should demand [of our leaders and ourselves] that we not only use our intellect, but also our conscience for the greater good instead of relying on our instincts. The world has plenty of resources, yet the disparity of wealth is deplorable in some cases, greed ringing its ugly head for the most part. But the cynic in me knows that your post above is absolutely true. And that’s such a shame…
What you seem to be forgetting, is that their Gt, Gt Grandparents probably worked to get their wealth and their titles. Most aristocrats owned land and employed men and women, which enabled everyone to feed and clothe themselves.
Indeed, you only have to look at people like Arthur Scargill, the union leader at the time of the miners strikes. Whilst encouraging them to strike and live without a wage, just handouts, he continued to live in his big house in a good area and draw a huge salary. There was even talk that the man misappropriated funds that should have gone to the men.
Well, you have the most sophisticated argument yet. Let say I’m persuaded by it, you are still overlooking one element which is, in an institutionalized inequity as well “a egalitarian democracy”, the decision of by the majority always prevail. While I may share everyone’s frustration about inequality, it will still be as evident as anywhere else. Bill Clinton, for all his merits and intellectual capacity had to out smart the establishment in order to survive. Which leads me to Ruppert Murdoch, who is most certainly not irrelevant to this issue for the reason that his TV conglomerate influences an entire group of people by keeping them uninformed, they then go to the polls. The result is even in a democracy the establishment is always working on keeping themselves at the top. If and when the majority of the British public decides they have had enough, more power to them. Until then, I’m afraid all I can do is sympathize.
My argument, as a non-British is academic. That's what we do on this thread. It is only for the British People to decide what form of government they want. No arguments there!
Wait a minute… Declaring war on Britain? Your post completely confused me. Why don’t I address the part that my little brain could process, how is that for straightforward.I beg the differ, there is nothing, even remotely, sophisticated about my argument. It's extremely straightforward.
Well, I never suggested other republics should declare war on Britain so it would abolish the monarchy
Indeed, but, as point in fact, he had an opportunity to become President. In a Monarchy, no matter how hard he tried, never could he have landed that position (Head of State). I have pointed out, that for people from a modest background, getting ahead is more difficult, but in a republic, even a person from the most humble family could reach for the top job.
Well, I'm afraid we'll have to remain in disagreement on that one. Ruppert Murdoch, is most certainly irrelevant to this issue, for the reason that he is a private man. Another business man could take a hold on his company or start a different Media conglomerate. He is not situated in his position by LAW.
I'd like to point out gain, that I'm not saying that the world is such a perfect place. It changes very slowly, the numbers of Millionaires as opposed to poor people are slim. But, that's no excuse to revert (or remain, as in this thread's particular case) to institutional inequality.
Afro-American people are very far from being treated equally on many levels, but now there's a Presidential Candidate. You could be dismissive and say "well, there aren't that many like him". True, but it's possible. When racism was institutionalized, there's nothing he could have done about it. (Beware, I know it's an extreme example, but it serves to make a point regarding institutional inequality, not to suggest any offense)
You are right, but in a republic, ANYONE, according to the law, can become a part of the establishment, even to become head the establisment (difficult but possible, as already demonstrated). That's Meritocracy for you.
As for the British people, again, it's their choice only, and if they so wish it, may the Monarchy survive forever in Britain.
No offence, it's a debate so we are sharing ideas. Not when, it is still institutionalized, only slavery and segregation ended. How long ago, in the grand scheme of things, yesterday. That's also an affect of the establishment's plan to keep the status quo. I just wanted to offer this clarification.
