I'm a white male who voted Biden. Why?

submitted by DoubleReverse from self.politics

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]emptiedriver 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

sure, saving money to become flexible, buy a house, invest in a business, take vacations and explore options is great, but a) most people don't do it beyond perhaps the house, they just hoard the money and watch its value increase, and b) the super-rich who are the ones in question here, who literally have billions of dollars to "give them confidence", would not lose anything if their taxes were raised a bit and the comparative wealth in the country went back to something more like how it was a few decades ago.

It has just gotten out of hand and there's no purpose or fairness to it. No one should have that much more power than their peers. It's much more like a monarchy/ oligarchy than a democracy. They cannot possibly earn that much money, even if they create the most socially important and unique thing, and most of the time they are essentially lucky with their starting company, and then lucky with investments.

[–]Intuit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No one should have that much more power than their peers.

I'm fine with people having power over what they own and have acquired through voluntary exchange. I'd be thrilled with government that is non-existent or existed only at a local community level. Concentrations of power will always be exploited to benefit the few. They can't exist without being misused.

[–]emptiedriver 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So you are fine with oligarchies, aristocracies, authoritarian kingdoms, dictatorships, or other forms of society where the few rule over the many?

You accept yourself that concentrations of power will be misused - shouldn’t we try to regulate that to some degree?

You suggest that people have power “over what they acquire through voluntary exchange” - is that really how people become billionaires?

The point of these kinds of taxes is not to take from middle class people who work hard and want to keep their earnings. It’s to even out the unnecessary and accidental over abundance that the super-rich have come into possession of, so that those just starting out have more opportunities and a greater sense of security. It isn’t about “power over what they own” but power to control society, to buy media corporations or elections, or take over and merge opposing businesses so that consumers only have one choice. Having so much money that you influence the economy so dramatically is not just power over your own property but power over everyone else, and it is constantly evident, even when you do not intend to do anything questionable. Where you think the money should go is where it goes.

[–]Intuit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you are fine with oligarchies, aristocracies, authoritarian kingdoms, dictatorships, or other forms of society where the few rule over the many?

How are these simply people acquiring property by voluntary exchange? Rule over people is not possible because people cannot be property; it's a violation of property rights.

You accept yourself that concentrations of power will be misused - shouldn’t we try to regulate that to some degree?

Regulate it with a concentrated power? The solution can't be more of the disease. Regulate via voluntary exchange and defense of that? Yes. A concentration of power is not merely a bunch of people choosing the same thing, it's a few or one person choosing something and imposing it by force on others.

You suggest that people have power “over what they acquire through voluntary exchange” - is that really how people become billionaires?

That's the problem when the state has taken over so much of the market, it's difficult to do things without playing along with it. My argument was that in a situation like in the past where there was far less state interference in the market, there's nothing inherently wrong with someone who acquires a lot. Of course lots of people currently acquired money through crooked means or through the power of the state. The state isn't going to fix this other than by drastically scaling itself back.

power to control society, to buy media corporations or elections, or take over and merge opposing businesses so that consumers only have one choice. Having so much money that you influence the economy so dramatically is not just power over your own property but power over everyone else

I don't think that this is possible without the state's interference in the market.

Why There is No Such Thing as an Exploitative Monopoly in a Free Market