Glen,
I hope this helps.
CONCLUSION:
There are examples of less ruling of the rich and, even if there were no such examples, a discussion of why it would be better if we had less such ruling would be useful.
ARGUMENTATION: I agreed to the proposition that the rich tend to have a dominant influence in societies in which resources are readily stored, including our own. So, while I might agree that it will always be more or less true, I might also believe that the less it is true, the better. Or, that a society in which it is less true is more likely to be stable and attractive to live in for the largest numbers of people..
(2) Second, given that understanding of what I agreed to, there ARE examples where the rich are not as dominant as the rich are in our current society. In fact, not long ago, we were such a society.
(3) Your request is for what one of my favorite FRIAM friends calls "an existence proof". In other words, I have to provide an example that such a thing has ever existed, before I can make an argument that it ought to exist. Surely, an existence proof is desirable, but not necessary to planning. But now that you mention it, it occurs to me that the world might well be a better place now, if an existence proof had been required of the man who first proposed to make an atomic bomb.
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
On 01/10/2014 02:31 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Yes. I agree. We might get into trouble later regarding understandings of rich, but mostly it's true. It tends to be less true in hunter gatherer groups where less dominant males tend to gang up and control their more successful colleagues. See Boehm's Democracy in the Forest. I think that's it. But ever since it became possible to store grains, sendentary societies have tended to be dominated by people who can corner the storeable resources.
>
> In short let's go on.
OK. So, as a descriptive fact: "He who has the gold rules." Now we go back to Marcus' question: Does the aphorism mean "He who has the gold _ought_ to rule"? At which point, I just reiterate my response, which is:
Since all we've ever known is "He who has the gold rules", what basis can we possibly use to say that it ought to be any other way? What other way is there?
--
⇒⇐ glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |