You say you don’t believe a market economy can avoid concentrating power in the hands of the wealthy. I agree, to a point. That’s exactly why we need democratic intervention to redistribute that power. It’s not about a perfect world where no one ever has influence; it’s about building a system where concentrated wealth doesn’t dictate the terms of life for everyone else. That’s not utopia. That’s a fight we’ve waged before with labor laws, progressive taxation, and antitrust enforcement. We can do it again.
You argue we shouldn’t legislate a “wealth glass ceiling” but instead create a society where the wealthy choose to help. But that’s a moral wish, not a policy. We’ve tried that. It’s the logic behind trickle-down philanthropy, tax breaks for donations, and the Gates Foundation world. It hasn’t worked. It can’t work because it still leaves essential decisions in the hands of people whose power comes from hoarding, not sharing.
I get the discomfort with “us vs. them.” But that language only feels harsh if you assume the current system is neutral. It’s not. It already takes sides, just not ours. When just three people have more wealth than half the country, and they use that wealth to kill housing bills, weaken labor protections, and shape elections, that’s not just a moral problem, it’s structural one. I don’t think it’s divisive to name that; it’s honest.
So yes: I want a society that fosters generosity and solidarity. I don’t think we get there by hoping billionaires become more virtuous. I think we get there by making hoarding impossible in the first place.
