3 ms·
> The problem with having a handful of people be billionaires and trillionaires is that money is power, and with that amount of money you have nearly unlimited
by datashow 7y ago
> The problem with having a handful of people be billionaires and trillionaires is that money is power, and with that amount of money you have nearly unlimited power and influence over everyone and everything. A system that will concentrate that much power will be inherently evil, it will and does serve the needs of that few over the needs of the many.
It is kind of right but essentially wrong. In any society with the size of more than hundreds of people, it always has a power structure, and always has a small number of people concentrate power way more than others. It is not a problem with super rich people. Even in all the Communist countries (Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.) where everyone is super poor and there is no millionaire, power structure and concentration of power still exists and is way more cruel than in a market-driven society.
Of course UBI doesn't solve this, because there is no way to solve this. Even if you nuke the modern world to stone age, power structure and concentration of power will 100% appear again and keep growing when you have a team, a tribe, a city, a nation.
- wardnath 7y agoCompletely agree. I would rather have hierarchies determined by free-market forces rather than a state-organized system. Corporate monopolies should be deterred by the state, but trying to cap individual success via something like a wealth tax would cause problems for the whole market.
- etripe 7y agoAll you're really saying with your post is you'd rather live in an oligarchy (free market players) than a democracy (the state). The free market is in no way fairer or less corrupt than elections, but it is more single-mindedly incentivised by the profit motive. I fail to see the inherent moral victory. Many people add on the mistake of thinking they will belong to the class of enlightened despots. You haven't said enough for me to tell if you're one of those.
- dwiel 7y agoWouldnt that same argument apply to people fighting for democracy in the age of monarchy? Why try to get rid of the king when he will just be replaced by a president? Dont even bother. Obviously power structures and concentration of power always exist in some form, but that doesn't mean we should never try to rein it in on occassion.
- datashow 7y agoNo. They are not the same. How is it worthless to replace the king with a president? I don't understand your logic.
- ghostwriter 7y agoYou cannot achieve that by replacing an almighty king with an almighty government dictating who gets what (which is a prerequisite of UBI).
- pitay 7y agoDoesn't a UBI get rid of actually prevent a government from dictating who gets what? With current social support programs the government does get to choose who gets what. But with a UBI, every adult would get the same amount, effectively removing the government's ability to choose who gets benefits. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you are saying, I don't know.