Reply #149: Social justice indeed [View All]

[sweetheart]

That "most" wealth is unearned, still leaves that some of it "IS" earned.
I congratulate a football player who can get enough money in their short
career to keep them in food and clothes 60 years after they last step
on a field.

But how do we make sure that wealth is shared equitably, and that the
"kapitalists" do not take the lions share as rent for their capital?
In this regard, i would recommend a 20 to 1 ratio of earnings within an
economic entity, that the boss can make max 20 times the grunts. Then
when the boss is making a million, the "grunts" are making 50,000... and
hey, that is more fair.

I think the issue is rather the economic distribution problem, not so
much that one set is wealthy, but that the boss:grunt ratio has become
absurd in our bushian distopia to several hundred to 1, that the boss
can make a cool mil and the office cleaner paid under the table at
4 dollars an hour.

That wealth is allowed to influence politics has been the case for ages
of man, as certainly the wealthy perceive that they have more skin in
the game, given the republican focus that the state exists to ensure
property, pretty much as the sole purpose. Your postuation is
noble, but then it is more in keeping with the french revolution and
marxism, that a society equally enfranchise the poor.. something yet
to come to america... and something that was likely to have occurred
had FDR not come up with the new deal.... and similarly as they
dismantle the new deal, we should support them, as it will lead to
a badly needed french revolution, a beheading, and a system that
truly enfranchises all people.