Lots of talks about "civil war", yet people don't seem to really grasp what it takes for a "civil war" to happen.
Sure, the current political climate and policies favoring a demographics and disenfranchising another can create social tensions. There will be protests, there will be discontent, etc... but all these be quelled. As it is customary.
Some political groups will, may, might, back these movements of discontent and give them symbolic support. But it will not go farther than that, the commitment will not cross the threshold of words. Because actions have consequences and the consequences are severe. People in a position of power usually aren't desperate enough to take practical actions, they have things to lose: their position, their power, their career and political future. Without these they are useless.
Which is why they turn to cutting deals and creating coalitions. To maintain relevance and maintain a sense of "opposition", while it is nothing but broadly performative. It can block a few things here and there, but eventually it leads to the country stagnating, not being able to do anything meaningful. And if whoever is in power gets annoyed, they will simply use whatever executive power to force whatever they want to pass.
Bobby Mac Bobface and his friends however do not enjoy such privileges, but also are the actual ones suffering from the policies and the quelling of discontent. They don't have much to lose, but they don't necessarily want the little they have left to be taken away either.
People love talking about revolution and "civil war" until it is actually time to do revolution and "civil war" stuff. And when that time comes, well, let us just say they are on the AWOL list. Which won't stop them from running their mouth though.
Meanwhile, in the latest push to further divide the population, there is that "new idea" about inheritance with various liberal journalists suggesting banning inheritances, and vows for transfer of property of the deceased to the state to fund public services, is a good idea.
The logic is that no one should be eligible to receive wealth from relatives, and higher death taxes would foster meritocracy and work ethic and thus incentivize people to take more pride and joy in their work. Instead of just "inheriting stuff from mommy and daddy you did nothing to earn".
Which is a rather amusing thing to say, since generational wealth does play a huge role and factor in people's upbringing. Though stereotypical, a child from a rich family is more likely to evolve in an upper-level social surrounding, attend better schools, get presented with more favorable opportunities and a broader set of means to enrich oneself (materially, intellectually, morally, philosophically, etc...). On the other hand a child of a disenfranchised family is less likely to get access to these things.
Of course, there is always the odd one out where, the privileged one will just simply sit on his ass and enjoy what he believes is due of him; while the not privileged will try and do his best to surpass expectations and demark himself.
This follows UK’s government introduction of taxes on agricultural properties and equipment passed down to heir.
www.bbc.com
