6 ms·

In the USA "all men are created equal". Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money. Companies/institutions should not be allowed

In the USA "all men are created equal". Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money. Companies/institutions should not be allowed to spend money on politics, and a flat tax would solve this.

nickdurfe 3mo ago
41 of the 56 men who signed the document containing that statement were slave owners.
- decremental 3mo ago
  [dead]
- whateveracct 3mo ago
  and yet now the constitution bans slavery i find the "but the founding fathers had slaves" to just be nihilistic nonsense the united states was a manifestation of enlightenment philosophy that persists to this day (despite attacks on it)
  - nickdurfe 3mo ago
    "and yet now the constitution bans slavery" Unless you're a prisoner convicted of a crime. Stating that the founders of the United States owned slaves is not "nihilistic nonsense", it's an important distinction to note that they sought political power for themselves, and no one else. The phrase "all men are created equal" should be interpreted as "all white land-owning men are created equal"
    - pipes 3mo ago
      But the constitution doesn't say: "all white land-owning men are created equal" It said "all men are created equal". It took a long time to get to this point in human history and it's worth defending.
      - amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
        That was the declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It has no force of law, but is certainly asperational.
        whateveracct 3mo ago
        the declaration of independence has some weight in the common law
      - nickdurfe 3mo ago
        Your elementary school social studies teacher failed you; the statement you referenced is written in the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. The parent OP that I first replied to stated that "Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money". This is a position not at all worth defending, and completely at odds with the concept of "all men are created equal".
        pipes 3mo ago
        To be fair. I grew up in Ireland and have never lived in the USA. I just admire the protections for the individual that your country aims for. Anyway I appreciate the correction :)
    - tychez 3mo ago
      This is such an embarrassingly childish viewpoint. Stop embarrassing yourself.
  - watwut 3mo ago
    It took literal war to get there.
    - whateveracct 3mo ago
      it also took a war to reify enlightenment philosophy as our government
apothegm 3mo ago
> Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money. Fine, I’ll bite: Why?
- gaiagraphia 3mo ago
  The rich are always going to manipulate politics. Maybe it'd be better for them to directly influence politics with their names and votes attached to policies, as opposed to hiding in the shadows and using representatives as fall guys. Think we'd all be better off if the whole lobbying caste was dismantled and there were simpler paper trails. Why not let Bezos, Musk et al spend £1bil/year to sit on the senate?
  - JKCalhoun 3mo ago
    "The rich are always going to manipulate politics." It's why many are suggesting billionaires not exist at all.
Catloafdev 3mo ago
> Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money The capitalist's manifesto
gaiagraphia 3mo ago
I think I heard that the Carthaginians used to auction off political positions, and the proceeds were effectively the taxes which ran society. While on the surface it sounds like a ridiculous concept, maybe it'd be better if we just cut out all the middlemen. At least policy could be directly connected to the paymasters.
- nobodywillobsrv 3mo ago
  Whild I hate the idea of a zillionaire tax, and I largely think good allocators should allocate, I also recognize that simply pricing things and allowing them to be bought is unstable in many cases. If you can use it to take over a country it must be stopped.

nickdurfe 3mo ago

41 of the 56 men who signed the document containing that statement were slave owners.

decremental 3mo ago
[dead]
whateveracct 3mo ago
and yet now the constitution bans slavery i find the "but the founding fathers had slaves" to just be nihilistic nonsense the united states was a manifestation of enlightenment philosophy that persists to this day (despite attacks on it)
- nickdurfe 3mo ago
  "and yet now the constitution bans slavery" Unless you're a prisoner convicted of a crime. Stating that the founders of the United States owned slaves is not "nihilistic nonsense", it's an important distinction to note that they sought political power for themselves, and no one else. The phrase "all men are created equal" should be interpreted as "all white land-owning men are created equal"
  - pipes 3mo ago
    But the constitution doesn't say: "all white land-owning men are created equal" It said "all men are created equal". It took a long time to get to this point in human history and it's worth defending.
    - amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
      That was the declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It has no force of law, but is certainly asperational.
      - whateveracct 3mo ago
        the declaration of independence has some weight in the common law
    - nickdurfe 3mo ago
      Your elementary school social studies teacher failed you; the statement you referenced is written in the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. The parent OP that I first replied to stated that "Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money". This is a position not at all worth defending, and completely at odds with the concept of "all men are created equal".
      - pipes 3mo ago
        To be fair. I grew up in Ireland and have never lived in the USA. I just admire the protections for the individual that your country aims for. Anyway I appreciate the correction :)
  - tychez 3mo ago
    This is such an embarrassingly childish viewpoint. Stop embarrassing yourself.
- watwut 3mo ago
  It took literal war to get there.
  - whateveracct 3mo ago
    it also took a war to reify enlightenment philosophy as our government

apothegm 3mo ago

> Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money. Fine, I’ll bite: Why?

gaiagraphia 3mo ago
The rich are always going to manipulate politics. Maybe it'd be better for them to directly influence politics with their names and votes attached to policies, as opposed to hiding in the shadows and using representatives as fall guys. Think we'd all be better off if the whole lobbying caste was dismantled and there were simpler paper trails. Why not let Bezos, Musk et al spend £1bil/year to sit on the senate?
- JKCalhoun 3mo ago
  "The rich are always going to manipulate politics." It's why many are suggesting billionaires not exist at all.

Catloafdev 3mo ago

> Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money The capitalist's manifesto

gaiagraphia 3mo ago

I think I heard that the Carthaginians used to auction off political positions, and the proceeds were effectively the taxes which ran society. While on the surface it sounds like a ridiculous concept, maybe it'd be better if we just cut out all the middlemen. At least policy could be directly connected to the paymasters.

nobodywillobsrv 3mo ago
Whild I hate the idea of a zillionaire tax, and I largely think good allocators should allocate, I also recognize that simply pricing things and allowing them to be bought is unstable in many cases. If you can use it to take over a country it must be stopped.