Why? Wealth begets power begets wealth. We dont let 300 pound men fight in the same ring against a 120 pound girl because we understand certain things just arent right.
But we force everyone to compete financially and politically against these artificially created super wealthy.
We don't allow regular citizens to own nukes because we understand the danger, I propose the danger of this much unlimited wealth is as great a danger as nukes.
Why? Your solution penalizes those individuals who are able to create wealth naturally and not "artificially" as you suggest. It goes without saying that any precedent that allows for penalizing the good because of what the bad do is very bad stuff.
Instead, why not, for example, seek to remove the condition(s) that allow for people to become artificially wealthy?
You're missing the core issue, artificial or not its incredibly dangerous having that much concentrated power in so few hands. Instead if people needed to stop accumulating wealth at say 50 million like I said, they would need to collaborate with 200 people to wield the same sort of influence as 1 Bill Gates, that removes much of the authoritarian danger.
Also like I said, you cant build a nuke in your garage because of the damage it could do to society. This is exactly the same. Your argument amounts to "it's not fair that everyone doesnt get their own nuclear power plants just because some peoples would meltdown and destroy the earth.
I feel like you fancy yourself a down on his luck future billionaire or something. This wouldn't ever effect you.
I am not disagreeing with your assertion that it is dangerous to have that much wealth in so few hands. I'm saying your "solution" of limiting the wealth of everyone to solve said problem, sucks.
And I'm asking why it sucks? It will affect almost No One! Like 1 person per state will be forced to stop cut throat grinding and go do something else or volunteer at their current position.
Why does that suck if it would save our world? I think it would bring incredible FREEDOM to many people who arent strong enough to put their morals above their greed. These people should already be making this decision to stop, but 1 out of every 100000 is a psychopath and NEEDS to have the most power.
The Michael Jordan's can keep playing basketball if that's their passion, they just dont get 50 million an hour. They can choose where that money goes, a charity of their choice or no where and do it for free or even their children or other people.
Why? Wealth begets power begets wealth. We dont let 300 pound men fight in the same ring against a 120 pound girl because we understand certain things just arent right.
But we force everyone to compete financially and politically against these artificially created super wealthy.
We don't allow regular citizens to own nukes because we understand the danger, I propose the danger of this much unlimited wealth is as great a danger as nukes.
Just look at our republic.
Why? Your solution penalizes those individuals who are able to create wealth naturally and not "artificially" as you suggest. It goes without saying that any precedent that allows for penalizing the good because of what the bad do is very bad stuff.
Instead, why not, for example, seek to remove the condition(s) that allow for people to become artificially wealthy?
You're missing the core issue, artificial or not its incredibly dangerous having that much concentrated power in so few hands. Instead if people needed to stop accumulating wealth at say 50 million like I said, they would need to collaborate with 200 people to wield the same sort of influence as 1 Bill Gates, that removes much of the authoritarian danger.
Also like I said, you cant build a nuke in your garage because of the damage it could do to society. This is exactly the same. Your argument amounts to "it's not fair that everyone doesnt get their own nuclear power plants just because some peoples would meltdown and destroy the earth.
I feel like you fancy yourself a down on his luck future billionaire or something. This wouldn't ever effect you.
I am not disagreeing with your assertion that it is dangerous to have that much wealth in so few hands. I'm saying your "solution" of limiting the wealth of everyone to solve said problem, sucks.
And I'm asking why it sucks? It will affect almost No One! Like 1 person per state will be forced to stop cut throat grinding and go do something else or volunteer at their current position.
Why does that suck if it would save our world? I think it would bring incredible FREEDOM to many people who arent strong enough to put their morals above their greed. These people should already be making this decision to stop, but 1 out of every 100000 is a psychopath and NEEDS to have the most power.
The Michael Jordan's can keep playing basketball if that's their passion, they just dont get 50 million an hour. They can choose where that money goes, a charity of their choice or no where and do it for free or even their children or other people.