Publisher's Synopsis
Do you believe that the Founding Fathers were shallow thinkers? When they forbade the use of honorific titles, demanded by royalty and other aristocracy, were those Founding Fathers forbidding only the title-words, or treating those words as short-hand for the entire system that they had just jettisoned; inherited wealth, privilege and political power?Can the inequities seenand jaw-boned without actionin current day America (in law enforcement; income and tax distribution; generation-skipping wills; and corporations imbued with human rights but without human ethical standards) be seen fairly as the slow transformation of the middle- and under-classes into royal subjects, whether under aristocracy by that title or merely by its apparently de facto existence?Consider that Bush and Clinton candidacies are discussed as dynasties, to a degree not accorded Kennedys. The word dynasty has usually been applied to royalty and nobles, by title or cash. Theyre above the law because the king makes law. Different if bought?Did the rash of police killings of unarmed black men in the mid twenty-tens have a cause and/or purpose? Was Ferguson's use of militarized police an unintended tip-off to the general population or a warning? Is control just distant early warning?When robots have replaced most of the routine and repetitious job-actions of people, what will become of unemployed people? Wouldnt extreme control methods be required? Does that justify the militarization of police now?Has the American population been lulled by bling, scandals, and ego-salving pronouncements (best of; world's policeman; exceptional nation; indispensable nation) into accepting Freedumb, American Style? Doesnt freedumb enable easy lives for some to be exchanged for truly equitable lives for all?Equitable indicates only equal opportunity and equal rights as we've enjoyed for hundreds of years despite slavery?These and the author's other uncomfortable questions about unquestioned realities of American life today can trigger a list of workable, potential solutions. Such solutions might not be popular among the politically super-conservative and the Super Rich (Ferdinand Lundberg; 1968) but might stir feelings of ';What if' in those who haven't thought about the events of American life today as dots in a picture, not merely as silo incidents.If the US might soonor alreadyhave a de facto aristocratic system, is it constitutional? Tolerable?You might not agree with the thrust of this books questions but will you be able to ignore the questions?
