3 ms·

That's not a very constructive criticism. In theory those who provide most money can decide the most how is it going to be spent. In practice I'm assuming tax

• matt4077 10y ago
  I can see a case in which they have some sort of moral claim to control spending, but that is limited, as one example, by the fact that a government decides a lot more than spending. It's also a bad idea when you want to make good (as in maximize individual happiness) decisions, since the "10%" who'd end up with 90% of the political power have neither the knowledge nor (in some cases) the interest to help a majority of society. Even they would actually not have to gain much from controlling spending (except by lowering taxes) as the super-richs' happiness is more or less independent of gov spending: private schools, private jets, private healthcare. Oh, it's also a completely stupid & undemocratic idea, which led to my glib initial criticism.