The Law and it's benifactors

Aldurin · 10-22-2011, 12:03 AM

I have to agree with Geminex's stance on the issue. Law is created with the intent of maintaining social stability for everyone, despite it's abuse by the rich. It's intent is neutral while the result is definitely not.

Also, "the rich" needs to be more closely defined. Is this simply anyone with a fuckton of money and the ability to spend it? Is it douchebags that inherited 99.999% of their wealth? Or is it people who decided to have the initiative and be resourceful enough to actually work their way from the bottom up and grab success by the balls?

Depending on how this is categorized can influence the issue. Rich people that don't work for their money will likely be compared to despots and that is not necessarily a bad analogy, since they basically have power thrown at them without necessarily having any experience actually running anything that'd qualify them for influencing law. But if it's people that actually earned their way to being considered rich then it is reasonable to see them having influence by using the same drive and resourcefulness that got them rich (which in itself is perfectly reasonable since they ARE working for that power and along the way they probably gained some administrative experience which would further qualify them for making law). And when you do work your way to the top then you probably garner some degree of respect and influence from the sheer fact that other top-level people see them as potentially powerful.

To shorten the last paragraph, the laws are surely heavily influenced by people that happen to be wealthy, but the result of that influence could easily be considered in different ways depending on who "the rich" are. It could be people that don't deserve such power using it how they feel or it could be people that have experience running things and just happened to earn their way to being rich along the way.

10-22-2011, 12:03 AM	#12
Aldurin Lakitu Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 4,648	I have to agree with Geminex's stance on the issue. Law is created with the intent of maintaining social stability for everyone, despite it's abuse by the rich. It's intent is neutral while the result is definitely not. Also, "the rich" needs to be more closely defined. Is this simply anyone with a fuckton of money and the ability to spend it? Is it douchebags that inherited 99.999% of their wealth? Or is it people who decided to have the initiative and be resourceful enough to actually work their way from the bottom up and grab success by the balls? Depending on how this is categorized can influence the issue. Rich people that don't work for their money will likely be compared to despots and that is not necessarily a bad analogy, since they basically have power thrown at them without necessarily having any experience actually running anything that'd qualify them for influencing law. But if it's people that actually earned their way to being considered rich then it is reasonable to see them having influence by using the same drive and resourcefulness that got them rich (which in itself is perfectly reasonable since they ARE working for that power and along the way they probably gained some administrative experience which would further qualify them for making law). And when you do work your way to the top then you probably garner some degree of respect and influence from the sheer fact that other top-level people see them as potentially powerful. To shorten the last paragraph, the laws are surely heavily influenced by people that happen to be wealthy, but the result of that influence could easily be considered in different ways depending on who "the rich" are. It could be people that don't deserve such power using it how they feel or it could be people that have experience running things and just happened to earn their way to being rich along the way.