|
|
|
|
|
|
by about_help
2590 days ago
|
|
|
"I do not believe Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet's, etc, wealth impacts my inalienable right to life, liberty, and property." That seems simple enough, however there are a multitude of secondary effects that happen when you allow individuals or corporations to amass the levels of wealth we see today. This enables them to monopolize markets through a variety of means and subvert the political process. Even without Citizen's United making bribery pretty much legal such wealthy entities would still be able to use their wealth to influence society. Simply because Gates was in the right place and time to develop a near OS monopoly he should have a disproportionate say in society's politics? These are not simple problems to solve, but then again they aren't that difficult either. |
|
|
You mean their wealth allows them to offer people money to do services and provide goods in exchange for it? If Mark Zuckerberg or Gates were hiring hitmen, enslaving people with their private army, etc, we can have a conversation, but I won't condemn someone for asking someone else to do something for them and giving them money in return.
> Simply because Gates was in the right place and time to develop a near OS monopoly he should have a disproportionate say in society's politics?
Well I personally think the government should be doing substantially less, which reduces the efficacy of lobbying.
> Simply because Gates was in the right place and time to develop a near OS monopoly he should have a disproportionate say in society's politics?
I am not sure what the question means. I have lots of opinions on what one 'should' do, but -- unless necessary to protect someone's life, liberty, or property -- I hesitate to enforce them by law. For example, I think driving a car to work when you could take a bus is immoral, and I think no one 'should' do that, but I would refuse to make it law. I feel similarly here.
But coming back to reality, Having more wealth means you have an increased ability to influence others.
Do you think being a famous artist means you 'should' be able to have a disproportionate say in society's politics? Why or why not? But regardless of what you think, famous people always do.
Coming back to Gates, I don't like that he has that ability personally, because I disagree with a lot of his social policy, but I won't stoop to taking his money. It is ultimately his money, earned legally. If you find he did something illegal, then I think he should be prosecuted and jailed.
> These are not simple problems to solve, but then again they aren't that difficult either.
Again, I think the fundamental disagreement is that I do not believe there is a problem. There is no allegation of criminal means of money accrual; there is no allegation of using that money in an illegal fashion. The only accusation is that they ask people (and I'm not talking politicians here -- that's illegal; I mean their NGO or corporate employees) to do things they want and offer them money in exchange. That is legal, and a fundamental right.