Nostr Web Client

Some argue that policies like wealth redistribution, environmental regulations, or social welfare programs could be seen as counter to the immediate self-interest of the ruling class, as they might involve higher taxes or constraints on business. Others believe that maintaining a stable society, even through policies that might seem counterintuitive, ultimately benefits the ruling class by preventing social unrest or revolution.

In some cases, the "ruling class" might not be monolithic, and divisions within it could lead to policies that are not universally beneficial to all its members. Additionally, short-term actions might seem against their interests, but could serve longer-term goals. Overall, it's a nuanced subject open to interpretation.

Medici 2y ago

Their biggest act against their own interests seems to me that they have embraced a new type of ‘belief’ system that appears not to make sense to ‘the many’. It forces the many to see them as unreliable authority, to be feared, rather than as the righteous guardians they proclaim to be.

I am more inclined to believe maintaining a stable society, even through policies that might seem counterintuitive, ultimately benefits the many protected from social unrest or revolution. It just seems that those who believe they are maintainers have opted to do so by force rather than sharing a narrative that makes sense to th many. Perhaps it could serve longer-term goals, but goals are the stuff of individuals, not populations.

Reply to this note

Discussion