[nroets]

Isn't it inevitable that one person will decide the fate of many ? If we get rid of billionaires through wealth tax, then politicians will have more power to decide the fate of many.

The US seem to choose their presidents not based on policies or track record but rhetoric. That doesn't seems better than capitalism.

[madsbuch]

The US political system is another discussion.

Again, as an EU citizen, the two party system seems to be wildly un-democratic. In Denmark we have 10 parties represented in the parliament (in a country of 5.5million people). This forces decision making to be compromise seeking and represent more real opinions.

[fennecbutt]

Presumably, if people have taken action and voted to tax the rich, then they'll also vote for better representation within their democracy.

Problem is that you're right, people don't really vote for the right reasons and hence we'll never tax the rich. It's mutually exclusive imo.

[scotty79]

Politicians go through a voting process. People needs to agree to be ruled by them.

To become a billionaire you just need to be lucky enough to purely mechanistically attach yourself to a market phenomenon and drain it. Noone needs to agree to that.

[lobocinza]

This market phenomenon is people voting with their wallets. It is also democratic.

[scotty79]

Of course, because noone ever bought something because they had to not because they wanted to.

[lobocinza]

And none ever voted in someone because they had to not because they wanted to.

It's common for people to vote in candidate B because they don't want candidate A to win and while they dislike B it is deemed as the lesser of evils as he is the only alternative with a good chance of winning. AFAIK this is the universal case in every representative democracy.

[scotty79]

In democracy you can also abstain. In the market for food, shelter and clothing it's not possible without serious harm to your health.

Also vote costs you nothing and oa the same for all people and your voting power in the market is directly proportional to how much money you can spend.

It's not similar. At all.

[lobocinza]

> In democracy you can also abstain.

Not really. You can abstain from voting but not from paying taxes. And if you abstain from voting you will still will be subject to the authority of whoever get's elected and it will probably not be in favor.

> In the market for food, shelter and clothing it's not possible without serious harm to your health.

You can grown, build and craft your own. It's not always practical but you have those options. e.g. I cook my own food and grow produce in the backyard. And we all have way more and better options for food, shelter or clothing than we have for president, governor or mayor.

> Also vote costs you nothing and oa the same for all people and your voting power in the market is directly proportional to how much money you can spend.

I don't know in which world do you live but that just ain't true. Elections are super expensive. In Brazil public funding for political parties is a 10-digits figure. Money win elections. Rich rent-seekers "donate" massive amounts to candidates legally and illegally to later receive favors.

> It's not similar. At all.

Free market is the purest form of democracy. Representative democracy is garbage.

[fennecbutt]

Can't vote with your wallet if you have no choice.

Remember, umbrella companies are buying up multiple competing brands for ages now. Rather than shutting them down, they just make money from all of em.

We're doomed, lmao: https://blog.cheapism.com/brands-owned-by-same-company/

[lobocinza]

YMMV I feel that I have more economical choices than political choices. This isn't a question to me.