3 ms·

I agree with both statements. It's not because a rich person has more, that poor people have less. If we were to start from scratch and redivide all the wealth

I agree with both statements. It's not because a rich person has more, that poor people have less. If we were to start from scratch and redivide all the wealth in the western world between the people, it wouldn't take long for some individuals to rise to the top again and build up their net worth. However, with wealth also comes power. There's just so much more you can achieve with good money in the bank. One simple example: a wealthy person with the good lawyer will almost always end up receiving a lighter sentence (if any) in comparison to the poor person with the shitty lawyer (if he even has a lawyer). That is clearly unfair, yet the way it is.

humanrebar 9y ago
> However, with wealth also comes power. This is certainly true. What's not clear is whether that power can be redistributed equally or if addressing it just leaves a vacuum of power and the risks that entails. More concretely, there hasn't been a form of campaign finance regulations that has actually achieved its goals in the U.S. At least so far. If the rich couldn't fund their unfair legal teams, would the justice system be more fair? Or would it just give more power to prosecutors who wouldn't have their actions challenged and appealed as often?