Your build/buy analysis is pretty astute if you accept the axioms: when reasonable people disagree firmly it’s almost always their starting assumptions.
I’ll challenge the notion that enriching mediocre people at the expense of society is either reasonable or useful. Enlightenment ideals around the sanctity of personal property fall apart when you extrapolate that to millions of people in passive index funds who don’t vote on governance.
Neither the United States Constitution nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights nor the Geneva Conventions have any protections for rent seeking assholes as a bloc.
Don’t shoot the messenger: in my reading of history either one group backs down or the other slaughters them.
Your analysis seems really handwavey. Of course, rent seeking is not considered particularly valuable. But some amount is inevitable. You haven't been very specific about the rule change that you think would reduce rent seeking, or why you believe it would be helpful.
I see very little downside in an extreme form of campaign finance reform where basically any interaction between industry and legislature is deemed briber and treason and is a capital crime.
I’ll also advocate for a punitive wealth tax: not to raise revenue (who cares) but to cripple billionaires who aspire to nation state power. 50 million seems like plenty to live in arbitrary luxury but not enough to buy policy. Seize everything above that.
>basically any interaction between industry and legislature
If legislature doesn't talk to industry before regulating, expect lots of incompetent, ignorant, economy-crippling regulation.
You don't have to change anything in the US if you want this. Just move to Germany.
>cripple billionaires
You might be able to persuade Trump of this, actually, if you sell it as increasing his power over the other billionaires.
More seriously -- It sounds like you have a strong desire to live in an authoritarian country, where the state possesses unchallenged primacy over its citizens. I support your right to do that. There are many available to choose from.
I'll bet if you do enough research, you can even identify an authoritarian country which also has crippling regulations. That should be perfect.
These talking points went mainstream around the time Reagan got elected, around the time stuff like the Laffer curve got taken seriously.
The United States was mounting a vigorous defense against the Warsaw Pact in 1960, and again in 1970, and straight up through 1979 before Reagan was elected and we took the Laffer Curve straight off the back of a napkin and to the legislature.
There is a way to run a participating democracy without a dystopian upwards wealth transfer, without unlimited political spending, without a catastrophic class segmentation that will lead to war. And we can do it all while opposing unbounded statism.
It sounds like you’re doing well under the current system and trying to frame it like that makes a system good.
This will be my last reply in this thread (unless you apologize).
>These talking points went mainstream around the time Reagan got elected, around the time stuff like the Laffer curve got taken seriously.
Unfashionable isn't the same as wrong. It's telling that you're responding by saying "this is why you're unfashionable", rather than "this is why you're wrong".
>There is a way to run a participating democracy without a dystopian upwards wealth transfer, without unlimited political spending, without a catastrophic class segmentation that will lead to war. And we can do it all while opposing unbounded statism.
Are you aware that median wages in the US are some of the highest in the world?
I actually care more about global inequality than inequality within the USA. I would sooner support effective foreign aid than welfare.
But really -- It's not your specific policy ideas that disturb me, so much as your attitude. Your politics aren't the politics of benevolence or charity. They're the politics of envy, ego, bitterness, and resentment. That never ends well:
>It sounds like you’re doing well under the current system and trying to frame it like that makes a system good.
Currently surviving off of savings due to a chronic illness. I haven't had a good source of income for multiple years. My Medicaid coverage just renewed. I rent a room in an undesirable area. I don't have a car. I won't get a chance to see my family for Christmas.
But you know what? I am "doing well". That's because "doing well" is more about your mentality than your material resources.
I hope you get the support you need in that area. Merry Christmas.
I’ll challenge the notion that enriching mediocre people at the expense of society is either reasonable or useful. Enlightenment ideals around the sanctity of personal property fall apart when you extrapolate that to millions of people in passive index funds who don’t vote on governance.
Neither the United States Constitution nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights nor the Geneva Conventions have any protections for rent seeking assholes as a bloc.
Don’t shoot the messenger: in my reading of history either one group backs down or the other slaughters them.
I’m lobbying for the peaceful resolution.