It seems like the richest nations/individuals in the world have the most geopolitical and cultural influence in the world. Is this fair to the peoples born in poorer nations? Is this right, wrong, or justified?
2007-03-11 06:01:24 · 4 answers · asked by Brandon 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is clearly true, and it is right only if one considers wealth to be indicative of morality and merit.
And indeed, for much of the middle ages, people did consider wealth to be the physical manifestation of divine virtue. One would hope, however, that we now understand that money is not the finest indicator of righteousness, and so we should not automatically reward high income with great public policy influence.
I would prefer a meritocracy, which is clearly anathema to a plutocracy.
2007-03-11 06:05:42 · answer #1 · answered by Steve 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it always has been!
Democracy almost achieved a revolution in enabling the people to determine their own fate. The social democracies of Europe have been most successful at this.
But even democracies are corrupted by monied interests using various means (e.g. campaign finance laws and tax laws).
Over the years, America has oscillated between true representative democracy and plutocracy. The latest swing back to true democracy occurred just last November 2006! But it wasn't a complete swing. Many average, conservative Americans still naively believe the rich are looking out for them and they are still voting Republican.
2007-03-11 06:13:10 · answer #2 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it isn't.It's just that wealth comes as a byproduct of mature democracy and personal freedoms.Thus,allowing the people to bloom.
2007-03-11 06:05:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
right and both wrong the poorer people must learn to get jobs
2007-03-11 06:11:59 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋