4 ms·

> but do we need more Koch brothers spending money where they think it will do good? Would you rather prefer a Stalin guy in charge of funds and money? You are

> but do we need more Koch brothers spending money where they think it will do good? Would you rather prefer a Stalin guy in charge of funds and money? You are talking about extremes here, as if private money are inherently bad, while governments are inherently good and democratic. Even in our "liberal democracies" governments spend on bailouts, subsidies for big biz, countless wars, foreign bloody dictatorships. This is better than Koch brothers? Democratic, hah? The good thing about private money is the diversity, there are different rich people, on the scale from Hitler to Jesus, with different ideals and views, spending on different things. With governments it's way more centralized, and if your government is fucked, it's abysmally fucked due to the concentration of power.

asdfman123 7y ago
The argument that any kind of wealth distribution is akin to Soviet-style communism is the extreme idea. It's been practiced peacefully throughout Europe. Authoritarianism is a different political dimension.
- afiori 7y ago
  That is not wealth distribution, that is a social state that prioritize the minimal needs of its people. Rich people poses no problems with that. (many people who do are rich and they use their money as a tool to get more money, but being rich itself is not a problem)
- ernst_klim 7y ago
  > The argument that any kind of wealth distribution is akin to Soviet-style communism There is no such argument in my comment. The comment explicitly states that saying that any private money are evil is akin to saying that any gov is evil because Stalin. > It's been practiced peacefully throughout Europe. Wealth redistribution is very modest here. Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland are one of the most liberal countries in the world (way more liberal than US), and the redistribution here is mostly from middle class to the poor, rather than from rich to the poor, with the huge emphasis on voluntarism (Sweden and Finland don't even have minimum wage).

asdfman123 7y ago

The argument that any kind of wealth distribution is akin to Soviet-style communism is the extreme idea. It's been practiced peacefully throughout Europe. Authoritarianism is a different political dimension.

afiori 7y ago
That is not wealth distribution, that is a social state that prioritize the minimal needs of its people. Rich people poses no problems with that. (many people who do are rich and they use their money as a tool to get more money, but being rich itself is not a problem)
ernst_klim 7y ago
> The argument that any kind of wealth distribution is akin to Soviet-style communism There is no such argument in my comment. The comment explicitly states that saying that any private money are evil is akin to saying that any gov is evil because Stalin. > It's been practiced peacefully throughout Europe. Wealth redistribution is very modest here. Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland are one of the most liberal countries in the world (way more liberal than US), and the redistribution here is mostly from middle class to the poor, rather than from rich to the poor, with the huge emphasis on voluntarism (Sweden and Finland don't even have minimum wage).