5 ms·

How the government spends it is a massively less important consideration than preventing the rich from having it. Money is power, and too much power in too few

How the government spends it is a massively less important consideration than preventing the rich from having it. Money is power, and too much power in too few hands is a real threat to national security and the integrity of a republic. If the big banks can say "bail me out or else" or any of these billionaires can say "If you try to hold me accountable I will make it hurt," how much freedom from tyranny do we really have?

endisneigh 3y ago
If that’s the concern there’s no need for tax, simply have a wealth limit. Agree or disagree?
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  Who enforces the wealth limit? If there is no tax, there can be no enforcement, no regulation, and no solving disputes by means other than who is most powerful. It's not the concern, it is one concern, but specifically in the context of taxing the rich, I think it is the dominating concern.
  - greyface- 3y ago
    Isn't this just as true of income taxes? They rely on accurate self-reporting, and there are legal remedies when inaccurate self-reporting is discovered. We could have people self-declare their wealth to the IRS annually on tax day.
sershe 3y ago
And is the government itself some platonic entity? This comment is deeply ironic - we are afraid of the concentration of power in the hands of some rich people, so we are going to give more power to the most massive and heavily armed entity in human history, barely accountable (beyond extremes) given that most actual ruling is done by bureaucracy and even the "choice" between parties is not very meaningful, and increasingly controlled by one man via executive action.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs Here is some classic internet for you (CCP Grey's: rules for rulers) that I think you would have trouble refuting while being consistent with your post.
  - sershe 3y ago
    I watched the amount of video that it would take to read a comment here and it was not insightful. You'd have to summarize, nobody watches videos :P That said, to expand my argument a bit 1) Vast majority of abuse of power in history has been done by governments. 2) Out of that, majority has been done by the govts that came by thru revolution by non-rich people, and/or were populist - i.e. based upon popularity among masses of non-rich people, and/or partially thru vote of non-rich people. 3) Even when rich people, excluding those rich because they are in the government in the first place, directly abused power (e.g. corporations like United Fruit), they usually did it mostly via a government that was either friendly to them or easy to bribe. There are very few exceptions. Power concentration among rich men not in government is literally the last thing I would worry, by itself, about as far as power goes. The only problem with Bezos having lots of power is that he could buy the politicians and use their power. So, the best solution is to reduce their power.
    - hayst4ck 3y ago
      If you don't want to understand that's sad but fine. The video will explain why you're model is wrong if you watch it. > So, the best solution is to reduce their power. If Bezos can buy the cops, should we get rid of cops so he can't exercise power through cops?
      - sershe 3y ago
        Well, I can recommend a few books by e.g. Thomas Sowell that I'm pretty sure refute whatever model some rando on youtube armed with an opinion has. Come back when you've read them, although if you don't want to understand that's also fine... this is not how discussions work. You actually have to present an argument, not expect someone to watch an 18 minute video from a rando. > If Bezos can buy the cops, should we get rid of cops so he can't exercise power through cops? Exactly! Well, almost. Ideally, the powers they have should be treated as baseline evil, and then there should be a good argument for any of them being a /necessary/ evil - e.g. is the alternative actually, obviously worse; at the very least, the powers should be restricted and defined as much as possible, so that there's the least possible room to stretch and abuse them. EDIT: I realized I responded kinda out of context after that. As per above, Bezoses bribing govt actors has historically been much less less of a concern than govt actors just abusing power of their own accord; and when Bezoses do abuse power via govt actors, the main reason is that govt actors have lots of power, wide discretion, complex easy to obfuscate rules, etc. With cops, drug prohibiyion is a great example - rife for abuse and selective enforcement. Remove the power, and it becomes much harder to abuse.

endisneigh 3y ago

If that’s the concern there’s no need for tax, simply have a wealth limit. Agree or disagree?

hayst4ck 3y ago
Who enforces the wealth limit? If there is no tax, there can be no enforcement, no regulation, and no solving disputes by means other than who is most powerful. It's not the concern, it is one concern, but specifically in the context of taxing the rich, I think it is the dominating concern.
- greyface- 3y ago
  Isn't this just as true of income taxes? They rely on accurate self-reporting, and there are legal remedies when inaccurate self-reporting is discovered. We could have people self-declare their wealth to the IRS annually on tax day.

sershe 3y ago

And is the government itself some platonic entity? This comment is deeply ironic - we are afraid of the concentration of power in the hands of some rich people, so we are going to give more power to the most massive and heavily armed entity in human history, barely accountable (beyond extremes) given that most actual ruling is done by bureaucracy and even the "choice" between parties is not very meaningful, and increasingly controlled by one man via executive action.

hayst4ck 3y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs Here is some classic internet for you (CCP Grey's: rules for rulers) that I think you would have trouble refuting while being consistent with your post.
- sershe 3y ago
  I watched the amount of video that it would take to read a comment here and it was not insightful. You'd have to summarize, nobody watches videos :P That said, to expand my argument a bit 1) Vast majority of abuse of power in history has been done by governments. 2) Out of that, majority has been done by the govts that came by thru revolution by non-rich people, and/or were populist - i.e. based upon popularity among masses of non-rich people, and/or partially thru vote of non-rich people. 3) Even when rich people, excluding those rich because they are in the government in the first place, directly abused power (e.g. corporations like United Fruit), they usually did it mostly via a government that was either friendly to them or easy to bribe. There are very few exceptions. Power concentration among rich men not in government is literally the last thing I would worry, by itself, about as far as power goes. The only problem with Bezos having lots of power is that he could buy the politicians and use their power. So, the best solution is to reduce their power.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    If you don't want to understand that's sad but fine. The video will explain why you're model is wrong if you watch it. > So, the best solution is to reduce their power. If Bezos can buy the cops, should we get rid of cops so he can't exercise power through cops?
    - sershe 3y ago
      Well, I can recommend a few books by e.g. Thomas Sowell that I'm pretty sure refute whatever model some rando on youtube armed with an opinion has. Come back when you've read them, although if you don't want to understand that's also fine... this is not how discussions work. You actually have to present an argument, not expect someone to watch an 18 minute video from a rando. > If Bezos can buy the cops, should we get rid of cops so he can't exercise power through cops? Exactly! Well, almost. Ideally, the powers they have should be treated as baseline evil, and then there should be a good argument for any of them being a /necessary/ evil - e.g. is the alternative actually, obviously worse; at the very least, the powers should be restricted and defined as much as possible, so that there's the least possible room to stretch and abuse them. EDIT: I realized I responded kinda out of context after that. As per above, Bezoses bribing govt actors has historically been much less less of a concern than govt actors just abusing power of their own accord; and when Bezoses do abuse power via govt actors, the main reason is that govt actors have lots of power, wide discretion, complex easy to obfuscate rules, etc. With cops, drug prohibiyion is a great example - rife for abuse and selective enforcement. Remove the power, and it becomes much harder to abuse.