Just Fred wrote:

Insofar as many people use the term in different senses I also am not comfortable with that either. The term is usually used to condem the rich merely for being rich and associating things to wealth itself. I guess my question for you would be would you use the same term to classify a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett vs the oft quoted Koch brothers ? 

And if not, why not ?   -  Tennyson

Ok, I surrender.  Make up a term to describe someone(s) who uses their power and influence via the injection of huge wads of cash into government to promote their own special interests with little or no regard or empathy for those who may be hurt.

 I've used the terms plutocrat, plutocracy, oligarch, and oligarchy quite alot since I sense our country is headed down that path involving those who would use their wealth to purchase elected officials, and thus the government.

Give me a better, more descriptive word or words and I'll use it.

I am really NOT trying to be a pain here, but again as in the example with Bill Gates - is he a plutocrat ? He uses his wealth and influence in politics to support Common Core. Is that a plutocrat ?  Are there good and/or bad plutocrats ?  Or does that depend on ones perspective ? 

Just trying to stretch how we think about things. 



 

Brady Bunch wrote:

I agree with Tennyson.

In terms of calling someone a plutocrat or oligarch, if what they are doing or saying meets those definitions, then by all means call them that. However I think we run into an issue with calling someone those terms, even when they be acting or behaving in a way that doesn't reflect those terms.

In addition to that the terms are usually used in a perjorative aspect meaning expressing contempt or disapproval. I was merely trying to point out that I believe you could equally term what Bill Gates does as being a plutocrat, but I would bet many do not think of him in the same negative sense as the Koch Bros (wheras SOME might because of his broad support for Common Core). Bill indeed does use his power and influence. Is it bad ? You decide. It is not always an easy decision. 





 

tennyson wrote:

BYOB wrote:

Proof that anybody can be an a*#hole. 

I just don't like the Koch's because they've treated people very badly to get where they are and what they have. I don't care what political persuasion they say they are. They could say they were the most liberal people on earth, and I still wouldn't like them because they lack honor.

I look at it a little differently. I was in fact trying to make the point that we tend to sterotype people. In fact people are very complex indivuduals and in the case of Carroll although he created the tax inversion strategy, he himself was rather liberal. Do we look at let's say a Bill Gates in the same regards, or a Warren Buffett ? Would be an interesting question. Obviously both of these men have done things in the business world to purely benefit themselves and their corporate interests. 

I admit I know very little facts about the Koch bros other than they are the constant villans of the liberals. 

According to all I can gather, their basic philosophy can be broken down into a strong support for free-market and a reduction in “Big Government”. Their belief, and that of many libertarians, is that the free-market works better without Government intervention and that an emphasis should be placed on individual responsibility. Pure libertarians therefore all tend to hate and work against anything that is a government sponsored thing which would include then things like Obamacare, welfare, etc. and also would correspondingly be in favor or the government not interfering with personal things such as gay marriage, etc. 

I can easily say I could never be a libertarian purist (or for than matter could I be a liberal purist or conservative purist). 

Guess I am not pure ! 

 

I kinda had all business types classified as underhanded, two-faced weasels.

Politics never entered in to it.  

Conspiracy Theory wrote:

tennyson wrote:

BYOB wrote:

Proof that anybody can be an a*#hole. 

I just don't like the Koch's because they've treated people very badly to get where they are and what they have. I don't care what political persuasion they say they are. They could say they were the most liberal people on earth, and I still wouldn't like them because they lack honor.

I look at it a little differently. I was in fact trying to make the point that we tend to sterotype people. In fact people are very complex indivuduals and in the case of Carroll although he created the tax inversion strategy, he himself was rather liberal. Do we look at let's say a Bill Gates in the same regards, or a Warren Buffett ? Would be an interesting question. Obviously both of these men have done things in the business world to purely benefit themselves and their corporate interests. 

I admit I know very little facts about the Koch bros other than they are the constant villans of the liberals. 

According to all I can gather, their basic philosophy can be broken down into a strong support for free-market and a reduction in “Big Government”. Their belief, and that of many libertarians, is that the free-market works better without Government intervention and that an emphasis should be placed on individual responsibility. Pure libertarians therefore all tend to hate and work against anything that is a government sponsored thing which would include then things like Obamacare, welfare, etc. and also would correspondingly be in favor or the government not interfering with personal things such as gay marriage, etc. 

I can easily say I could never be a libertarian purist (or for than matter could I be a liberal purist or conservative purist). 

Guess I am not pure ! 

 

I kinda had all business types classified as underhanded, two-faced weasels.

Politics never entered in to it.  

Guess I was a weasel then - for the past 10 years I was an independent small businessman ! 



 

tennyson wrote:

Conspiracy Theory wrote:

tennyson wrote:

I look at it a little differently. I was in fact trying to make the point that we tend to sterotype people. In fact people are very complex indivuduals and in the case of Carroll although he created the tax inversion strategy, he himself was rather liberal. Do we look at let's say a Bill Gates in the same regards, or a Warren Buffett ? Would be an interesting question. Obviously both of these men have done things in the business world to purely benefit themselves and their corporate interests. 

I admit I know very little facts about the Koch bros other than they are the constant villans of the liberals. 

According to all I can gather, their basic philosophy can be broken down into a strong support for free-market and a reduction in “Big Government”. Their belief, and that of many libertarians, is that the free-market works better without Government intervention and that an emphasis should be placed on individual responsibility. Pure libertarians therefore all tend to hate and work against anything that is a government sponsored thing which would include then things like Obamacare, welfare, etc. and also would correspondingly be in favor or the government not interfering with personal things such as gay marriage, etc. 

I can easily say I could never be a libertarian purist (or for than matter could I be a liberal purist or conservative purist). 

Guess I am not pure ! 

 

I kinda had all business types classified as underhanded, two-faced weasels.

Politics never entered in to it.  

Guess I was a weasel then - for the past 10 years I was an independent small businessman ! 



 

But were you a conservative weasel?

Overall I was thinking more along the lines of corporate weasels, not the garden-variely independent weasels.