Von dem Buch De facto Artistocracy-Constitutional? Can Financiers Legitimize an Aristocracy in America? haben wir 2 gleiche oder sehr ähnliche Ausgaben identifiziert!
Falls Sie nur an einem bestimmten Exempar interessiert sind, können Sie aus der folgenden Liste jenes wählen, an dem Sie interessiert sind:
100%: Cavalier, Richard: De facto Artistocracy-Constitutional? Can Financiers Legitimize an Aristocracy in America? (ISBN: 9781681890128) in Englisch, auch als eBook.Nur diese Ausgabe anzeigen…
100%: Cavalier, Richard: De facto Artistocracy-Constitutional?: Can Financiers Legitimize an Aristocracy in America? (ISBN: 9781681890111) THEAQ LLC, in Englisch, Taschenbuch.Nur diese Ausgabe anzeigen…
De facto Artistocracy-Constitutional? Can Financiers Legitimize an Aristocracy in America?
6 Angebote vergleichen
Bester Preis: € 2,09 (vom 12.08.2016)1
De facto Artistocracy-Constitutional? (2016)
EN NW EB DLISBN: 9781681890128 bzw. 1681890127, in Englisch, THEAQ Publishing, THEAQ Publishing, THEAQ Publishing, neu, E-Book, elektronischer Download.
Lieferung aus: Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika, in-stock.
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 seen-and jaw-boned without action-in 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. They're 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? Wouldn't 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? Doesn't 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.
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 seen-and jaw-boned without action-in 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. They're 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? Wouldn't 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? Doesn't 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.
2
De facto Artistocracy-Constitutional? Can Financiers Legitimize an Aristocracy in America? (1968)
EN NW EBISBN: 9781681890128 bzw. 1681890127, in Englisch, Theaq Publishing, neu, E-Book.
Lieferung aus: Niederlande, Direct beschikbaar.
bol.com.
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 seen—and jaw-boned without action—in current day America (in law enforcement; income and tax distribution; generation-skippi... 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 seen—and jaw-boned without action—in 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. They're 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? Wouldn't 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? Doesn't 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 soon—or already—have a de facto aristocratic system, is it constitutional? Tolerable? You might not agree with the thrust of this book's questions … but will you be able to ignore the questions?Taal: Engels;Formaat: ePub met kopieerbeveiliging (DRM) van Adobe;Kopieerrechten: Het kopiëren van (delen van) de pagina's is niet toegestaan ;Geschikt voor: Alle e-readers te koop bij bol.com (of compatible met Adobe DRM). Telefoons/tablets met Google Android (1.6 of hoger) voorzien van bol.com boekenbol app. PC en Mac met Adobe reader software;ISBN10: 1681890127;ISBN13: 9781681890128; Engelstalig | Ebook.
bol.com.
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 seen—and jaw-boned without action—in current day America (in law enforcement; income and tax distribution; generation-skippi... 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 seen—and jaw-boned without action—in 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. They're 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? Wouldn't 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? Doesn't 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 soon—or already—have a de facto aristocratic system, is it constitutional? Tolerable? You might not agree with the thrust of this book's questions … but will you be able to ignore the questions?Taal: Engels;Formaat: ePub met kopieerbeveiliging (DRM) van Adobe;Kopieerrechten: Het kopiëren van (delen van) de pagina's is niet toegestaan ;Geschikt voor: Alle e-readers te koop bij bol.com (of compatible met Adobe DRM). Telefoons/tablets met Google Android (1.6 of hoger) voorzien van bol.com boekenbol app. PC en Mac met Adobe reader software;ISBN10: 1681890127;ISBN13: 9781681890128; Engelstalig | Ebook.
3
De facto Artistocracy-Constitutional?: Can Financiers Legitimize an Aristocracy in America?
EN NWISBN: 9781681890111 bzw. 1681890119, in Englisch, THEAQ LLC, neu.
Lieferung aus: Kanada, In Stock, plus shipping.
Richard Cavalier, Books, De facto Artistocracy--Constitutional?: Can Financiers Legitimize an Aristocracy in America? 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 seen—and jaw-boned without action—in 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. They're 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? Wouldn't 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? Doesn't 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 soon—or already—have a de facto aristocratic system, is it constitutional? Tolerable?You might not agree with the thrust of this book's questions … but will you be able to ignore the questions?
Richard Cavalier, Books, De facto Artistocracy--Constitutional?: Can Financiers Legitimize an Aristocracy in America? 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 seen—and jaw-boned without action—in 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. They're 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? Wouldn't 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? Doesn't 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 soon—or already—have a de facto aristocratic system, is it constitutional? Tolerable?You might not agree with the thrust of this book's questions … but will you be able to ignore the questions?
4
De facto Artistocracy-Constitutional?: Can Financiers Legitimize an Aristocracy in America?
EN PB NWISBN: 9781681890111 bzw. 1681890119, in Englisch, THEAQ LLC, Taschenbuch, neu.
Lieferung aus: Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika, In Stock.
Die Beschreibung dieses Angebotes ist von geringer Qualität oder in einer Fremdsprache. Trotzdem anzeigen
Die Beschreibung dieses Angebotes ist von geringer Qualität oder in einer Fremdsprache. Trotzdem anzeigen
Lade…