[hsnewman]

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]

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

[whateveracct]

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)

[watwut]

It took literal war to get there.

[whateveracct]

it also took a war to reify enlightenment philosophy as our government

[nickdurfe]

"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]

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.

[nickdurfe]

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]

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 :)

[amanaplanacanal]

That was the declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It has no force of law, but is certainly asperational.

[whateveracct]

the declaration of independence has some weight in the common law

[tychez]

This is such an embarrassingly childish viewpoint.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[gaiagraphia]

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]

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.

[apothegm]

> Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money.

Fine, I’ll bite: Why?

[gaiagraphia]

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]

"The rich are always going to manipulate politics."

It's why many are suggesting billionaires not exist at all.

[Catloafdev]

> Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money

The capitalist's manifesto