Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

CURRENT EVENTS

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 38K
  • Politics 
Paine said:
I get what you’re saying, but I think there’s a category error here. Saying billionaires shouldn’t exist isn’t a personal belief in the way someone prefers chocolate over vanilla. It’s a political judgment grounded in how power, wealth, and democracy function in the real world.

Again: this isn’t about moral vibes, it’s about structure. We either have a system where a handful of people can accumulate enough wealth to bend policy, markets, and even elections to their will, or we have a functioning democracy. We can’t have both.

All laws codify values. The current system codifies the belief that wealth accumulation, even at obscene levels, is more important than universal housing, healthcare, or a livable planet. So yes, I believe in codifying something different. A system that treats democracy and dignity as non-negotiable.

Disagreement is fine. That’s just politics. But let’s not pretend all visions are equally valid just because they’re sincerely held. Some beliefs uphold oligarchy. Others fight for democracy. The moment we pretend all visions are equally valid because they’re “personal,” we drain politics of its content and protect the status quo by default.
Click to expand...
To me, your statements are too over-arching in some ways. As an example..."We either have a system where a handful of people can accumulate enough wealth to bend policy, markets, and even elections to their will, or we have a functioning democracy."

By this sort of binary choice, do you think your definition of functioning democracy has ever existed on the planet? It certainly would not seem to have ever existed in the United States.

Maybe I'm letting perfect be the enemy of good by saying this but I dont believe a market economy can ever produce a system where a handful of people can't bend policy with their wealth. I think that we have to work to create a system where those with that wealth and power exercise it in ways that better benefit society lest they be consumed by the monster they control.

To me, we dont fix out broken system by legislating a wealth glass ceiling so much as we build a society where those of means are desirous of helping those without.

Us vs. Them ain't gonna work...in my opinion.
 
wmheel1287 said:
To me, your statements are too over-arching in some ways. As an example..."We either have a system where a handful of people can accumulate enough wealth to bend policy, markets, and even elections to their will, or we have a functioning democracy."

By this sort of binary choice, do you think your definition of functioning democracy has ever existed on the planet? It certainly would not seem to have ever existed in the United States.

Maybe I'm letting perfect be the enemy of good by saying this but I dont believe a market economy can ever produce a system where a handful of people can't bend policy with their wealth. I think that we have to work to create a system where those with that wealth and power exercise it in ways that better benefit society lest they be consumed by the monster they control.

To me, we dont fix out broken system by legislating a wealth glass ceiling so much as we build a society where those of means are desirous of helping those without.

Us vs. Them ain't gonna work...in my opinion.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Take Citizens United and flush it
Have Elizabeth Warrren rewrite all tax codes
Billionaires don't bother me-if their stock increases in value 100 million dollars in one year -there should some tax . 100 Billion dollars, a higher %
 
mpaer said:
Take Citizens United and flush it
Have Elizabeth Warrren rewrite all tax codes
Billionaires don't bother me-if their stock increases in value 100 million dollars in one year -there should some tax . 100 Billion dollars, a higher %
Click to expand...
Take the Trump approach - That's a nice business you got there. I'd hate to have anything happen to it. I tell you what, contribute two billion dollars into the Medicare-for-all fund and I'll let you keep it. Deal?
 
Paine said:
But let’s not pretend all visions are equally valid just because they’re sincerely held. Some beliefs uphold oligarchy. Others fight for democracy.
Click to expand...
There have been a lot of smart people who didn't think democracy was a desirable social/political arrangement. Plato, Hegel, Nietzsche. LOL, maybe even Marx. Well, he believed in democracy as long as it led to socialism, but is it really democracy if it must lead to a predetermined end? Anyway, there's a pretty long list of serious thinkers over the centuries whose views can certainly be debated with but it seems a little bit arrogant to call them invalid, although I'll admit I'm not quite sure what you mean by valid. I mean, oligarchy is just as "valid" as democracy. Maybe not as desirable to some people, but I'm not sure what that has to do with validity. There are lots of ways of thinking about the world and lots of people have done it. Democracy (and dialectical materialism for that matter) are just two ideas in life's rich pageant, but none of them are self-evident, the Declaration of Independence notwithstanding. Speaking about them as if they are is a strategy, I suppose, but don't expect everyone to buy it...
 
hedge said:
There have been a lot of smart people who didn't think democracy was a desirable social/political arrangement. Plato, Hegel, Nietzsche. LOL, maybe even Marx. Well, he believed in democracy as long as it led to socialism, but is it really democracy if it must lead to a predetermined end? Anyway, there's a pretty long list of serious thinkers over the centuries whose views can certainly be debated with but it seems a little bit arrogant to call them invalid, although I'll admit I'm not quite sure what you mean by valid. I mean, oligarchy is just as "valid" as democracy. Maybe not as desirable to some people, but I'm not sure what that has to do with validity. There are lots of ways of thinking about the world and lots of people have done it. Democracy (and dialectical materialism for that matter) are just two ideas in life's rich pageant, but none of them are self-evident, the Declaration of Independence notwithstanding. Speaking about them as if they are is a strategy, I suppose, but don't expect everyone to buy it...
Click to expand...
Sure, plenty of thinkers have critiqued democracy. Some with depth, some just to sound provocative. But we don’t live in Plato’s Republic or Nietzsche’s aristocratic fantasy. We live in a society that claims to be a democracy. So the question isn’t “are all regimes equally valid?” It’s: are we living up to our own professed values or are we laundering oligarchy through democratic branding?

I’m not claiming that democracy is some self-evident universal truth written in the stars. I’m saying that in the system we’ve inherited, democracy is the moral and political currency. And if that’s the standard, then billionaire dominance is a direct contradiction.

Saying “all systems are just ideas” might feel humble or open-minded, but, in practice, it’s a way of stepping off the field and letting whoever has power keep it.
 
Paine said:
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.
Click to expand...
Will not work. It's wealth inequality. No one is saying there can't be millionaires and billionaires. Just saying that you shouldn't take away from the lower earners just to make it easier for the rich to get richer.

What happens when there is another housing bubble burst? You think those rich folks are going to still be virtuous?
A society is only as strong as its poorest members.
 
tonman said:
Will not work. It's wealth inequality. No one is saying there can't be millionaires and billionaires. Just saying that you shouldn't take away from the lower earners just to make it easier for the rich to get richer.

What happens when there is another housing bubble burst? You think those rich folks are going to still be virtuous?
A society is only as strong as its poorest members.
Click to expand...
Are we disagreeing here? You said it yourself: the rich are getting richer by taking from the rest of us. That’s the problem I’m trying to name and fix. It’s not about punishing success or eliminating all inequality; it’s about stopping the kind of extreme hoarding that lets a handful of people rig the system in their favor while millions struggle.

You said, “What happens when there’s another housing bubble? You think those rich folks are going to still be virtuous?”—exactly. That’s why we can’t build a society that depends on their virtue. We need rules that make hoarding and exploitation harder in the first place.

That’s what people mean when they say billionaires shouldn’t exist: not that no one can be wealthy, but that no one should have that much power over everyone else’s lives.

Lumping millionaires and billionaires together erases the scale of the problem. That’s why no one says millionaires shouldn’t exist. A millionaire might own a small business and a nice house. A billionaire owns industries, shapes markets, and can buy legislation. The difference isn’t just a few zeros, it’s systemic power.

I agree completely with this statement: a society is only as strong as its poorest members. That’s why I want one where the rules are written for the many, not the few.
 
Last edited:
Paine said:
Lumping millionaires and billionaires together erases the scale of the problem. That’s why no one says millionaires shouldn’t exist. A millionaire might own a small business and a nice house. A billionaire owns industries, shapes markets, and can buy legislation. The difference isn’t just a few zeros, it’s systemic power.
Click to expand...
THIS!
 
Paine said:
I’m saying that in the system we’ve inherited, democracy is the moral and political currency. And if that’s the standard, then billionaire dominance is a direct contradiction.
Click to expand...
Capitalism is also the system we've inherited and billionaire dominance is certainly not a direct contradiction to that. Quite the contrary, actually. I suspect that you have some ideas on capitalism. I also suspect that they wouldn't go over very well with most participants in our current culture and society, regardless of their political leanings. I do very much enjoy reading your thoughts on all these matter, though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top