> when several individuals hoard the majority of money, it leaves less for everyone else
I don't agree with this. Wealth is created everyday. If I start a SaaS business and grow it to become a billionaire, there does not need to be an equivalent loss of wealth anywhere else in the society.
> not a single person can possibly choose well how to employ such resources
What supports this assertion? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. My argument really is that how you spend your wealth is none of my business after you have satisfied your obligations to society (which we collect through taxes).
> Money is violence
Hard disagree. Violence is violence. There are lots of ways to compel people to act that are non-violent. Famously, Mark Anthony foiled a coup with a speech. The Pope has enormous influence without having any tanks, etc. I am really against the use of language to make unfounded logical leaps in argument.
That said, this is he most compelling argument I can think of ie that billionaires have enormous influence over society. It undermines the concept of "one man, one vote". The counterargument is that this concept has never really been true (and cannot be true). All societies have people of influence and that influence is gained in many ways (religious standing, military prowess, good works, hereditary ties, oratory, notoriety, skullduggery, etc). These are intrinsic to human society and cannot be removed. Those people with influence will always have disproportionate impact on the direction of society. I guess it comes down to a value judgement of whether we want money to be one of those things that generate political advantage (for example, most western democracies have removed the ability to wield physical violence as one of those factors that provide a political advantage)
I don't agree with this. Wealth is created everyday. If I start a SaaS business and grow it to become a billionaire, there does not need to be an equivalent loss of wealth anywhere else in the society.
> not a single person can possibly choose well how to employ such resources
What supports this assertion? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. My argument really is that how you spend your wealth is none of my business after you have satisfied your obligations to society (which we collect through taxes).
> Money is violence
Hard disagree. Violence is violence. There are lots of ways to compel people to act that are non-violent. Famously, Mark Anthony foiled a coup with a speech. The Pope has enormous influence without having any tanks, etc. I am really against the use of language to make unfounded logical leaps in argument.
That said, this is he most compelling argument I can think of ie that billionaires have enormous influence over society. It undermines the concept of "one man, one vote". The counterargument is that this concept has never really been true (and cannot be true). All societies have people of influence and that influence is gained in many ways (religious standing, military prowess, good works, hereditary ties, oratory, notoriety, skullduggery, etc). These are intrinsic to human society and cannot be removed. Those people with influence will always have disproportionate impact on the direction of society. I guess it comes down to a value judgement of whether we want money to be one of those things that generate political advantage (for example, most western democracies have removed the ability to wield physical violence as one of those factors that provide a political advantage)