In a word, yes. Why is someone born of a certain familiy deemed superior when ,in most cases, they clearly are not. The Kennedys are a good example. Joe senior made his fortune running bootleg whiskey out of Canada. Now these sewer trout are touted as American royalty.
Another example is the "The Royal Family of Great Britain". They amount to little more than well paid welfare recipients that serve no usefull purpose that I can see. Yet many bow and scrape before them.
To put yourself or anyone else in a certain class robs you ,or them, of individuality. Something the so called upper class and government wonks rely on to hold on to power.
I hope this explains my position.
This is a very interesting point. How does placing one's self in a "class" rob one's "individuality?" And why is this necessarly bad? What's so important about "individuality"? Assuming you dislike the classes, what do you propose as an alternative to the current class system? Would you re-engineer the class system? Would you abolish all classes? If classes destroy individuality, then what upholds or promotes it?
I think it is more complex than simply good and bad, rich and rest. The example of the Kennedy's shows how bad some people of the upper class are; but people of other classes are just as worse. You seem to imply from the Kennedy's that all people of the upper class are bad, which is certainly not the case. There are some inequalities which are good -- class distinctions is one of them. I think there will always be different classes; Social and economic classes seem just natural outgrowths of the differences (superficial or not) betweem humans.
Something the so called upper class and government wonks rely on to hold on to power.
Do you have any proof of this?
Sewer trout is too kind - a trout is a fine fish to eat. Backwater carp would be more accurate.