3 ms·
> On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country. They know what is best for them. It has noth
by axlee 4y ago
> On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country.
They know what is best for them. It has nothing to do with what is best for the country.
As you are advocating for an oligarchy, I suggest you take a look at all the oligarchies around the world: don't you notice that they are all, without exception, terrible places to live, and not even good places for striving economies? Surely, there must be some fault in your reasoning.
On the contrary, most great countries in the world have something in common: they tend to be democratic, they tend to be quite equal in the distribution of income, and they also tend to be run as social democracies.
- seibelj 4y agoWe are democratic. I’m advocating for letting capital invest in politicians and advertise their positions freely. $20 donations from a widespread group of people can also make their opinions heard effectively. If you seized all of Bill Gates’ wealth it would fund the USA for 3 months. Do you think making Gates a pauper to fund our profligate politicians is more effective than letting Gates keep his wealth and invest as he sees fit? I would argue Bill Gates is 10000x a better allocator of resources than the government. So maybe let him keep his wealth considering the government prints his net worth every month.