[ExI] Protected Elites

[Lee Corbin]

Stefano (and Mirco) wrote on 5/15 6:26AM (5:48 AM)

First Mirco wrote in the "diversity and private schools
thread"

    I must [argue that schooling was] wealth creating.
    Mass schooling was wealth creating already in the
    Middle Age and it happened in the Middle Ages.
    Rodney Star citing Spufford write that, from a
    statistic, in the 1338 in Florence near half of
    the school age population went to school. And the
    level of instruction of the people in Venice,
    Genoa and Milan was similar. The schooling was
    needed and requested by the local merchants and producers.

Thanks for the information. I concede the point.

Stefano wrote (in this thread)

> One big point that is largely ignored in transhumanist lists and that
> should know in principle a convergence of
> "libertarian/anarco-capitalist/social Darwinist" and of
> "socialist/communitarian",

I'm confused. Do you mean that the libertarian...social
Darwinists have converged towards each other, and that
the "socialist and communitarians" have converged towards
each other?   Well, I guess, surely not.  So what you
must be saying is that the libertarians and socialists
are converging. Now I can only believe that when it
concerns issues orthogonal to basic political philosophy.

> as well as of most transhumanists in
> general, I daresay, is that what we are living in is a neo-feudal
> society, where circulation of the élites is reduced to a minimum, and
> social mobility is largely a myth,

That may be true where you live, but it's not
true in the United States, especially the
further westward one moves. In fact the whole
migration from rust belt to sun belt shook
traditional elites up yet again, continuing
a trend in American history. The "rags to
riches to rags in three generations" story
is based largely in fact. At least here.

> the few examples of which have
> usually little to do with IQ, but rather with purely physical features
> (as in "marriage, show business and sport").
> 
> Yet, most of the time people are complaining about the fact that we
> would be living under the "law of the jungle" where the fittest would
> crash without pity the less lucky,

And I'd reply that provided total wealth is
accumulating rapidly, and the societies are
wealthy enough, the law of the jungle is
relatively innocuous. I do say "relatively",
because it's painful to say the least when
the unemployment runs out---but it is NOT
AT ALL like it was for people (almost
everyone) hundreds of years ago.

> or in a "socialist" society where
> competition and the action of the "invisible hand" would be hindered
> by state regulation and/or by masses oppressing the geniuses.
> 
> I submit that both scenarios are largely imaginary from a sociological
> point of view, and that our social system is instead largely aimed at
> protecting interests which are largely parasitic in their nature from
> a social point of view, and accordingly very wary of any kind of major
> techno-economical change.

Yes, as in that article whose URL I posted,
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
entitled "The Quiet Coup", *some* financial elites
have penetrated both government and high finance
(some kind of corruption always occurs when
government gets too much power).

But rich people in general ought not be very
severely taxed, because they're the source of
private investment. Weaken private investment,
and you weaken the economy accordingly, and
everyone is worse off.