3 ms·
It doesn't have to. The point isn't a perfect society, the point is to prevent resource hoarding and the accumulation of totalitarian power. When we allow wea
by dbingham 3y ago
It doesn't have to. The point isn't a perfect society, the point is to prevent resource hoarding and the accumulation of totalitarian power. When we allow wealth to accumulate we are also allowing power to accumulate.
- FredPret 3y agoWhen we allow the state to dictate wealth ceilings, we hand it absolute power.
- dbingham 3y agoThe state is democratic, not absolute. When the state implements policies like this it is acting as a democratic expression of the community's will. We as a community are saying "We're not going to allow individuals within our community to accumulate undo influence over it."
- golemotron 3y agoThe power of that community is absolute.
- jdiff 3y agoAs it should always be. Not that it is currently, not with these pesky billionaires.
- golemotron 3y agoLook up the history of democracy in 20th Century Europe.
- sudden_dystopia 3y agoThe majority community clearly doesn’t will this. This sort of thing only happens via violent revolution. Good luck with that.
- FredPret 3y ago> The state is democratic, not absolute. Laughable - the state has been growing on a one-way trajectory: ever larger, ever more powerful. It is run by bureaucrats who look after their own interests first, and who have no feedback loop between their own performance and reality. Think about this next time you go to the DMV or have to wait in line to see a doctor or deal with some kafkaesque snarl of paperwork. Your democratic will counts for nothing in the face of limitless state power.
- Exoristos 3y agoPolls and studies for years have shown that what elected officials legislate and what voters want rarely line up. Modern democracy has long outgrown representing mere constituents.
- lostlogin 3y agoIt’s not that black and white. What if those in power are elected? What if it wasn’t an absolute limit but harsh taxation?
- thereisnospork 3y agoIt's just preventing the accumulation of a specific kind of power. Relatively speaking this would increase the power of military generals, presidents, and criminals, for a start. Is that a good thing? maybe, but restricting power from a group needs to be assessed in terms of holistic power balance not naive platitudes like 'No one should be a millionaire/billionaire'.
- thinkski 3y agoAnd the answer to that is totalitarian control on wealth accumulation?
- anon291 3y ago> When we allow wealth to accumulate we are also allowing power to accumulate. Like the power of JD Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, which was much greater than any rich man today.... oh wait.. those went defunct too. Honestly, the fact that their heirs, despite having untold wealth were unable to keep the business going actually shows that individuals sometimes do have merits on their own, independent of the amount of money they were able to collect.