Originally posted by skekUng
Those would be the 1%.I dismiss it as a concept because that model benefits the very great minority at the expense of the vast majority; people confuse the reality of that with the concept of upward mobility and freedoms.
And perhaps those that think they can become part of the 1%.
Though honestly I don't really care how the wealth is distributed as long as people are free and live well. Hypothetically if all of the 99% could live like the 1% live now but the wealth still would be distributed the same way I don't think anyone can much complain.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And perhaps those that think they can become part of the 1%.
Originally posted by skekUng
people confuse the reality of that with the concept of upward mobility.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Though honestly I don't really care how the wealth is distributed as long as people are free and live well. Hypothetically if all of the 99% could live like the 1% live now but the wealth still would be distributed the same way I don't think anyone can much complain.
Then the wealth would be worthless. But I agree entirely. In the US, we need a second bill of rights -one that considers the modern era and realizes that the constitution was meant to be changed with the times and not some monolith in time that ends up holding us back.
Originally posted by skekUng
Then the wealth would be worthless. But I agree entirely. In the US, we need a second bill of rights -one that considers the modern era and realizes that the constitution was meant to be changed with the times and not some monolith in time that ends up holding us back.
What would your "modern bill of rights" consist of? What would you add to the original and what would you take away?
Originally posted by skekUng
Then the wealth would be worthless. But I agree entirely. In the US, we need a second bill of rights -one that considers the modern era and realizes that the constitution was meant to be changed with the times and not some monolith in time that ends up holding us back.
That would be third bill of rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
Although if you listen to people's rhetoric these days most of those rights are destroying America/the world.
I totally agree. If the founding fathers had intended the constitution to be perfect for all time, they would not have included an amendment process. they understood that no one can predict the future, and things that work in one century may not in another.
I would agree with FDR's second bill; many countries already have such provisions. The US however has failed to keep up.