• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Let Us Speak in Praise of Robber Barons and Righteous Men

AthenaAwakened

Contributor
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Messages
5,354
Location
Right behind you so ... BOO!
Basic Beliefs
non-theist, anarcho-socialist
When Mitt Romney issued his now-infamous “47 percent” remark during the 2012 presidential campaign, in which he insisted that roughly half of the American public is dependent on hand-outs and will never be persuaded to “take responsibility for themselves,” many in the media and among the general public seemed shocked. But was there any reason to be surprised that an economic plutocrat like Romney might feel that way? Fact is, Romney (as with his running mate, Paul Ryan, who previously had suggested as many as 60 percent of Americans were “takers” rather than “makers”) was not going off-script in the least. He was merely giving voice to an all-too-common belief among the nation’s ruling elite and their conservative media mouthpieces: namely, that the poor are simply different from the rich in terms of values, work ethic and talent. While the latter create jobs and add value to the larger society, the former simply live off the more productive.

Rather than criticize the wealthy, the poor and working class should be thanking them for all the good they do, or so the thinking goes. According to billionaire real estate investor Sam Zell, “the one percent work harder,” and rather than criticize them, everyone else should emulate them. Likewise, Forbes columnist Harry Binswanger has said in all seriousness that anyone “who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes,” and because even that tax rate of zero is insufficient thanks for all the good they do for the world, “to augment the tax-exemption, in an annual public ceremony, the year’s top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.”
Of Gods and Monsters: Valorizing the Rich in a Culture of Cruelty

Should the rich, because they are rich, be valorized, praised, and honored?
 
I think they should be exempt from taxes due to their superior ability to buy off the politicians who write the tax laws. Since those politicians' salaries come from tax dollars, having the rich pay them both in taxes and bribes is an unfair example of double taxation.
 
When Mitt Romney issued his now-infamous “47 percent” remark during the 2012 presidential campaign, in which he insisted that roughly half of the American public is dependent on hand-outs and will never be persuaded to “take responsibility for themselves,” many in the media and among the general public seemed shocked. But was there any reason to be surprised that an economic plutocrat like Romney might feel that way? Fact is, Romney (as with his running mate, Paul Ryan, who previously had suggested as many as 60 percent of Americans were “takers” rather than “makers”) was not going off-script in the least. He was merely giving voice to an all-too-common belief among the nation’s ruling elite and their conservative media mouthpieces: namely, that the poor are simply different from the rich in terms of values, work ethic and talent. While the latter create jobs and add value to the larger society, the former simply live off the more productive.

Rather than criticize the wealthy, the poor and working class should be thanking them for all the good they do, or so the thinking goes. According to billionaire real estate investor Sam Zell, “the one percent work harder,” and rather than criticize them, everyone else should emulate them. Likewise, Forbes columnist Harry Binswanger has said in all seriousness that anyone “who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes,” and because even that tax rate of zero is insufficient thanks for all the good they do for the world, “to augment the tax-exemption, in an annual public ceremony, the year’s top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.”
Of Gods and Monsters: Valorizing the Rich in a Culture of Cruelty

Should the rich, because they are rich, be valorized, praised, and honored?

Who praises the rich because they are rich? Why go for the strawman instead of asking the tougher question: Should someone who founded a company that provides something useful to the economy that didn't exist previously (new product, lower prices), be praised, valorized, or honored even though they are rich?
 
When Mitt Romney issued his now-infamous “47 percent” remark during the 2012 presidential campaign, in which he insisted that roughly half of the American public is dependent on hand-outs and will never be persuaded to “take responsibility for themselves,” many in the media and among the general public seemed shocked. But was there any reason to be surprised that an economic plutocrat like Romney might feel that way? Fact is, Romney (as with his running mate, Paul Ryan, who previously had suggested as many as 60 percent of Americans were “takers” rather than “makers”) was not going off-script in the least. He was merely giving voice to an all-too-common belief among the nation’s ruling elite and their conservative media mouthpieces: namely, that the poor are simply different from the rich in terms of values, work ethic and talent. While the latter create jobs and add value to the larger society, the former simply live off the more productive.

Rather than criticize the wealthy, the poor and working class should be thanking them for all the good they do, or so the thinking goes. According to billionaire real estate investor Sam Zell, “the one percent work harder,” and rather than criticize them, everyone else should emulate them. Likewise, Forbes columnist Harry Binswanger has said in all seriousness that anyone “who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes,” and because even that tax rate of zero is insufficient thanks for all the good they do for the world, “to augment the tax-exemption, in an annual public ceremony, the year’s top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.”
Of Gods and Monsters: Valorizing the Rich in a Culture of Cruelty

Should the rich, because they are rich, be valorized, praised, and honored?

Well of course the aristocracy should be praised for existing. Surely you're not suggesting we offer praise to some commoner from the middle class, are you? What purpose could possibly be served by that, except to promote your sick ideology of communism? [/conservolibertarian]

- - - Updated - - -

Of Gods and Monsters: Valorizing the Rich in a Culture of Cruelty

Should the rich, because they are rich, be valorized, praised, and honored?

Who praises the rich because they are rich? Why go for the strawman instead of asking the tougher question: Should someone who founded a company that provides something useful to the economy that didn't exist previously (new product, lower prices), be praised, valorized, or honored even though they are rich?

Strawman?

We have people on these forums praising and defending Paris Hilton for being a more productive member of society based entirely on her "accomplishments" with her money. How is this a strawman?
 
Of Gods and Monsters: Valorizing the Rich in a Culture of Cruelty

Should the rich, because they are rich, be valorized, praised, and honored?

Who praises the rich because they are rich? Why go for the strawman instead of asking the tougher question: Should someone who founded a company that provides something useful to the economy that didn't exist previously (new product, lower prices), be praised, valorized, or honored even though they are rich?

Start your own thread and you can ask your own questions. You don't get to tell me or anyone else what questions they should ask.

That just isn't cricket ole chap.
 
Of Gods and Monsters: Valorizing the Rich in a Culture of Cruelty

Should the rich, because they are rich, be valorized, praised, and honored?

Well of course the aristocracy should be praised for existing. Surely you're not suggesting we offer praise to some commoner from the middle class, are you? What purpose could possibly be served by that, except to promote your sick ideology of communism? [/conservolibertarian]

- - - Updated - - -

Of Gods and Monsters: Valorizing the Rich in a Culture of Cruelty

Should the rich, because they are rich, be valorized, praised, and honored?

Who praises the rich because they are rich? Why go for the strawman instead of asking the tougher question: Should someone who founded a company that provides something useful to the economy that didn't exist previously (new product, lower prices), be praised, valorized, or honored even though they are rich?

Strawman?

We have people on these forums praising and defending Paris Hilton for being a more productive member of society based entirely on her "accomplishments" with her money. How is this a strawman?

A strawman is a misrepresentation of an opponents argument. As the op is the opening statement, the opposition has yet to be established and as such can hardly be misrepresented.
 
Of Gods and Monsters: Valorizing the Rich in a Culture of Cruelty

Should the rich, because they are rich, be valorized, praised, and honored?

Who praises the rich because they are rich?

Politicians, various media outlets, and anyone who thinks they might be able to shake loose a dime or two. We have the annual 'rich list', write-ups in Forbes of the people who's only qualification is that they have more money than their readers, various high society events, and so on. And that's not including the praise you can get simply by spending some of the loot.
 
Who praises the rich because they are rich? Why go for the strawman instead of asking the tougher question: Should someone who founded a company that provides something useful to the economy that didn't exist previously (new product, lower prices), be praised, valorized, or honored even though they are rich?

Start your own thread and you can ask your own questions. You don't get to tell me or anyone else what questions they should ask.

That just isn't cricket ole chap.

Your question is a strawman because being rich is being praised, valorized, honored (with common coin) So there you have it "should the praised, because the are praised, be praised?".
 
Start your own thread and you can ask your own questions. You don't get to tell me or anyone else what questions they should ask.

That just isn't cricket ole chap.

Your question is a strawman because being rich is being praised, valorized, honored (with common coin) So there you have it "should the praised, because the are praised, be praised?".

It's not a strawman because conservolibertarians are constantly looking for ways to screw everyone else over for the benefit of the aristocracy, then if we get uppity and dare to complain about it, that's when we are either told about how great the aristocracy is, or how unworthy we are because we are not aristocrats.

But goodness forbid we accuse you of praising them.
 
We have people on these forums praising and defending Paris Hilton for being a more productive member of society based entirely on her "accomplishments" with her money. How is this a strawman?

[Citation needed]

Also, goal post shift duly noted, from "praise merely for being rich" to "defense" for questionable accomplishments.
 
Who praises the rich because they are rich? Why go for the strawman instead of asking the tougher question: Should someone who founded a company that provides something useful to the economy that didn't exist previously (new product, lower prices), be praised, valorized, or honored even though they are rich?

Start your own thread and you can ask your own questions. You don't get to tell me or anyone else what questions they should ask.

That just isn't cricket ole chap.

You are free to post a thread to preach to the choir and have your opinions reaffirmed if you want. I never said otherwise. I just don't see the point.
 
Who praises the rich because they are rich?

Politicians, various media outlets, and anyone who thinks they might be able to shake loose a dime or two. We have the annual 'rich list', write-ups in Forbes of the people who's only qualification is that they have more money than their readers, various high society events, and so on. And that's not including the praise you can get simply by spending some of the loot.

The praise is almost always for the professional accomplishments. One result of extreme professional accomplishments (top .1%) is usually lots of money. Hence why I considered it mostly a strawman as it ignores wanting to discuss the real source for the praise.
 
Great article, Athena. He's written a book about that: Culture of Cruelty, How America's Elite Demonize the Poor, Valorize the Rich and Jeopardize the Future (description)
Should the rich, because they are rich, be valorized, praised, and honored?
Or even more, be given reparations. If taxing rich people is an intolerable injustice, then undoing it would be a Good Thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if one could get rank-and-file right-wingers to enthusiastically support reparations for the rich, even if that means that they would be deprived of their homes, their cars, their savings, and all their other assets. Meaning that they'd have to live like bums and depend on what they profess to hate so much: handouts.
 
Or even more, be given reparations. If taxing rich people is an intolerable injustice, then undoing it would be a Good Thing.

Perhaps the most bizzare non sequitor from a strawman premise I've witnessed on this board yet.
 
]

Who praises the rich because they are rich?


The folks known collectively as the "Grand Old Party." Perhaps you've missed it, but the Republicans practically worship those who have become rich through inheritance, venture capital, or juggling hedge funds. If you've made millions acting in and/or directing movies you're obviously a communist, but that's another story.


Should someone who founded a company that provides something useful to the economy that didn't exist previously (new product, lower prices), be praised, valorized, or honored even though they are rich?

Useful to whom?
 
Or even more, be given reparations. If taxing rich people is an intolerable injustice, then undoing it would be a Good Thing.
Perhaps the most bizzare non sequitor from a strawman premise I've witnessed on this board yet.
So the injustice ought to continue? Or is taxation of rich people not an injustice? Either it is or it isn't. What is it?
 
There is actually a Historian that wrote a revisionist work titled: The Myth of the Robber Barons. I read it a long time ago. Let me see if I can find it.
 
Back
Top Bottom