The United States of America is not a nation-state. It is a nationality of convenience. This is an empire, even if it is (long may it so stay) the Empire of Liberty. We have great diversity in what it means to be an American. Very old Hispanic communities in New Mexico and Florida are just as American as descendants of residents of what were the original thirteen colonies and states. If having been stripped of any cultural connection to a foreign country except genes that place one's ancestors (or enough of them) in sub-Saharan Africa so that they could do back-breaking toil under brutal management and having to create a culture in America that belongs only in America, then what is?
... most of us recognize that excess is a sign of poor character. Learning, expertise, creativity, wit, and service do not create or promote excess because they are precious for what they can do for others. They deserve cultivation with economic rewards, and anything less is madness. If one isn't rich, then not being rich itself establishes the appropriateness of restraint. If one is rich due to honest efforts and investment (especially in a competitive economy that keeps profits modest), then investment can make more sense than 'enhanced indulgence'. So if investment in the family business comes at the expense of over-priced sports cars, jewels, artwork, large stables full of horses, whores, high-rolling, and cocaine, then such creates prosperity for the capitalist and opportunity for workers -- which is the capitalist ideal. Inordinate profits indicate that the person getting the gain is either a crony capitalist facing no competition or getting unusual breaks from the government, that one's business is ethically suspect (like drug trafficking), or that one is an outright thief. Even if the earnings are legitimate, as for a pop star like John Lennon or Michael Jackson or some winner of the Super-Duper Megabucks Lottery, the gain and the contribution aren't close.
It's not power. FDR and Churchill had power to rival that of dictators on the other side of the struggle between Good and Evil; during that struggle they were more concerned with winning that struggle than with self-indulgent excess. Contrast someone like Saddam Hussein, Nicolae Ceausescu, Hermann Goering, Bokassa I, Imelda Marcos, or (Fidel Castro was a candidate). I did ignore royal families such as the Japanese Royal Family, the House of Saud, or the royal families of the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, or Spain or former princely families of India or royal families of German monarchies before 1918. Somebody may have been a rapacious pig in the past, but that may not reflect upon successors.
In a sound social order, gain and contribution are close; investment in honest activities gets a reliable reward. Sure, John Davison Rockefeller II may have been hated in his time as a 'robber baron", but he practically invented the refinery and the pipeline system; he did on a grand scale what other capitalists were doing on a small scale at the time. The Rockefeller family is inordinately wealthy, but it is not prone to garish excess. Maybe they question what the point is of the sort of display that one sees from the kleptocrats and gangsters that I have displayed -- or even Michael Jackson's Neverland. Maybe some of it is an attempt to salve a miserable childhood of fear and deprivation.
I've never bought a ticket to one of the Super-Duper Megabucks Lottery, which is probably the only way that I could have ever gotten fantastically rich. What would I do with 500 million bucks after taxes? I've been programmed to not waste money, as I recognize excess in one thing (like an expensive hobby) means denial of something else. If I spend money for personal enjoyment -- even a movie -- I want it to be satisfying.
... most of us recognize that excess is a sign of poor character. Learning, expertise, creativity, wit, and service do not create or promote excess because they are precious for what they can do for others. They deserve cultivation with economic rewards, and anything less is madness. If one isn't rich, then not being rich itself establishes the appropriateness of restraint. If one is rich due to honest efforts and investment (especially in a competitive economy that keeps profits modest), then investment can make more sense than 'enhanced indulgence'. So if investment in the family business comes at the expense of over-priced sports cars, jewels, artwork, large stables full of horses, whores, high-rolling, and cocaine, then such creates prosperity for the capitalist and opportunity for workers -- which is the capitalist ideal. Inordinate profits indicate that the person getting the gain is either a crony capitalist facing no competition or getting unusual breaks from the government, that one's business is ethically suspect (like drug trafficking), or that one is an outright thief. Even if the earnings are legitimate, as for a pop star like John Lennon or Michael Jackson or some winner of the Super-Duper Megabucks Lottery, the gain and the contribution aren't close.
It's not power. FDR and Churchill had power to rival that of dictators on the other side of the struggle between Good and Evil; during that struggle they were more concerned with winning that struggle than with self-indulgent excess. Contrast someone like Saddam Hussein, Nicolae Ceausescu, Hermann Goering, Bokassa I, Imelda Marcos, or (Fidel Castro was a candidate). I did ignore royal families such as the Japanese Royal Family, the House of Saud, or the royal families of the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, or Spain or former princely families of India or royal families of German monarchies before 1918. Somebody may have been a rapacious pig in the past, but that may not reflect upon successors.
In a sound social order, gain and contribution are close; investment in honest activities gets a reliable reward. Sure, John Davison Rockefeller II may have been hated in his time as a 'robber baron", but he practically invented the refinery and the pipeline system; he did on a grand scale what other capitalists were doing on a small scale at the time. The Rockefeller family is inordinately wealthy, but it is not prone to garish excess. Maybe they question what the point is of the sort of display that one sees from the kleptocrats and gangsters that I have displayed -- or even Michael Jackson's Neverland. Maybe some of it is an attempt to salve a miserable childhood of fear and deprivation.
I've never bought a ticket to one of the Super-Duper Megabucks Lottery, which is probably the only way that I could have ever gotten fantastically rich. What would I do with 500 million bucks after taxes? I've been programmed to not waste money, as I recognize excess in one thing (like an expensive hobby) means denial of something else. If I spend money for personal enjoyment -- even a movie -- I want it to be satisfying.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.