You have a short memory.
''I believe it is, based on human nature, and reasons I've stated already: Humans are motivated by wealth and power, there's a historical precedent of rich and powerful seeking more wealth and power, historical precedent for subversion of democracy where possible.''
Which is directly related to my explanaition that other issues motivate me, to whit:
this is a very small tv station, there are actually under a dozen employees. The cableco that owns us however has 15000 employees including a tv network and a dozen cable specialty channels.
We here are jack of all trades, for eg., editors also produce, direct , switch, stand behind or in front of the camera. techs also do some of everthing. Even the manager has manned a camera a few times. Now what would I gain by taking positions at the larger stations other than a narrower job description and riding a desk all day? Even if I took the same position in a larger ciy I would pay more for a house and besides here I am a ten minute drive to my summer cottage, a three minute walk to work,a five minute walk to a beach on the 45 mile wide lake. I can be off work at 4:30 and fishing ten miles down the lake by 5:00. (in June the sun sets after 9:00 pm and there's a boat launch accross the street from the office)
are there motivations other than wealth? abso-freakin-lootly
Thus strictly speaking if "Humans are motivated by wealth and power" and I am apparently not then it follows that either I am not human or the premise is incorrect..
Perhaps dazed will by now have realized that its his all or nothing, unqualified statements that are the crux of his problem in hi sposts.
Had he stated that "history shows that for some people their prime motivators are wealth and power", he would not be taken to task.
Perhaps if he had simply opined that "Bill Gates may have begun his charity partly to deflect the ill feeling some people direct towards those of great wealth" he would not have been jumped on so heavily.
As JU has pointed out I believe, had Dazed stated that he is watchful of the Bilderberg Group because of the possibility (as opposed to probability) that such meetings could become a force with more power than governments. He would have received some small support.
Instead he displays an irrational fear and loathing of all those he considers rich. One wonders at what point a person is not wealthy enough to be the target of such fear and loathing. Certainly billionaires qualify, what is the low cut off though? Doctors are well paid in Canada and the USA. Many are millionaires by retirement. Insurance brokers and lawyers do well too. Some small business people also manage to become well off.
In the province of Ontario we get, once a year, a "Sunshine list" of all the persons receiving government payments over $100,000 per annum.
Since doctors do not bill patients and instead bill the Ontario government, many of them, especially specialists, are on the list. So too are school board presidents and top government officials.
Is $CDN100,000 (today that would be about $US98,000, two weeks ago it would have been $US102,000) a level at which Dazed or others would have suspicions about their motivations?
$250,000?
$500K?
$1M?
$10M?
Yes I understand that there is a level of wealth which many of us simply do not really fathom. I illustrate this often by noting that the Canadian Super 7 lottery often runs up to $50Million and people flock to buy a ticket. To the vast majority of citizens that amount of money is absolutely enormous, however, there are CEOs who receive compensation at this level every year.
Now here is where we can also illustrate that Dazed's unqualified statement about human motivation goes astray. Yes, people buy a ticket in order to chase the unlikely possibility of what they consider vast riches, for our puposes let's say $50M (BTW there is no lottery tax in Canada, you get the whole shee-bang).
Do lottery winners then use that wealth to increase their wealth and power to even greater heights? Not really. Many give away portions of their winnings to friends or relatives, buy a new house and car and then simply go about life as independantly wealthy persons. The motivation displayed then is largesse and a happiness with what they have. The diametric opposite of what Dazed contended was human motivation.
