do most people prefer unjust masters to just ones, and prefer slavery and war, to liberty, justice and peace?

Question

given that:

1] people have spent almost all their history in master-slave relation

2] 99% of people are paid less than the world average hourly pay, and therefore have the numbers to force equality of hourly pay which would pay them better, and which would pay 90% of people 10-1000 times better, and yet they do not

3] people after revolutions [eg american french russian] have done nothing to prevent overwealth and power regrowth, which is tyranny [fascism, nazism, communism, monarchy, the present super unjust capitalism] and undemocracy and unfreedom

4] every plutocracy in history has been toppled by the people, so it is not lack of power with the people that makes them prefer tyranny unliberty oppression and powerlessness

is it that people identify with billionaires and dont care that they themselves are not billionaires - they enjoy billionaireship exactly as if it were their own - their billionaire fantasy is more important than their reality funding billionairism?

Answer 1

I doubt most people 'prefer' poverty over riches.
However I do think that the 'unjust billionaires' prefer the poor remain in poverty. Money = power, and we all desire power to some extent or another.

It is easy to keep a poor person down when you yourself have millions. If say many of the poor were to climb higher on an economical scale than that would mean less money and power for the rich.

You are looking at poverty from the wrong end of the spectrum. It's harder to climb a mountain than it is to stand on top of it.

I also equate wealth with luck. If you are lucky enough to propose a business venture at the right time then you will be every bit as rich and powerful as the 'rich and powerful'. But if you have no luck, you can try and try your hardest and still never get anywhere.

Answer 2

it is rarely that black and white. conflict itself is incorrect. It basically may be much less incorrect than some kinds of injustice. Iraq is an occasion. in case you grant that Bush et al did it for the main remarkable motives and actually believed Iraq replaced into an immanent threat, then seem at each and every of the unintentional outcomes. i could wager that they did no longer plan to be there for years, they did no longer anticipate maximum of lifeless and wounded American troops, did no longer anticipate perhaps a hundred,000 Iraqi deaths, and did no longer anticipate to create over 2 million refugees from Iraq. Then there replaced into Abu seize and different problems for our forces. as quickly as a conflict starts off, there is little which could be performed to regulate it. this is going to continually be worse than absolutely everyone thinks. There could could be an injustice of super cost to justify a conflict.

Answer 3

People like to be on the master side of the slave master thing - that's why they condone it. Its like we are all born to seek out a way to make ourselves the top of the pile and its a minority who want things to be fair.

Answer 4

False premise. Your "given" is bogus, so the rest of your monologue is, too.

Answer 5

Who said that?