Not every economic system, economic systems that place significant barriers against ballooning of individual wealth off exploitation see less disparity, and thus less of an impact of money on politics.
You say not every economic system, but then you say less disparity, less impact.
Less disparity means there is still disparity. Less impact means there is still impact.
Because like I said, as long as there are human beings who want more power, there will be a struggle in any economic systems to prevent disparity.
That is because it isn’t the economic system that deregulates or undermines protections.
It is those who seek more power who deregulate and undermine protections.
And those people exist in all types of economic systems.
Even capitalist America had a point in history where disparity was low and the middle class and lower class thrived.
That is no longer the case because of those who removed regulations and changed the laws to suite themselves. And again, those people exist in every type of economy.
I did not say you could not eliminate the influence of money on politics, did I? You did. I countered it, and now you’re implying that it’s impossible to completely get rid of.
You can account for bad actors and power-seekers woth egalitarian distribution of power and a prevention against gaining in power.
What hierarchy? Statist hierarchy? That’s why the goal of Socialism is Communism, and nobody has reached Communism yet. Do you think we live at the end of history?
I think it can be achieved because it’s based in logical progression of real systems. If I can take your exact same argument and use it against Capitalism in pre-revolution France, with a similar lack of logical foundation, I don’t think your argument holds any water. It’s more like a strainer than a bowl.
If it just needs to be “based in logical progression of real systems” to achieve the goal, then why has it not succeeded yet after centuries of existence?
If I can take your exact same argument and use it against Capitalism in pre-revolution France
My argument that disparity is caused by people pursuing power and not economic systems?
Please explain how your example of France proves my argument wrong.
You say not every economic system, but then you say less disparity, less impact.
Less disparity means there is still disparity. Less impact means there is still impact.
Because like I said, as long as there are human beings who want more power, there will be a struggle in any economic systems to prevent disparity.
That is because it isn’t the economic system that deregulates or undermines protections.
It is those who seek more power who deregulate and undermine protections.
And those people exist in all types of economic systems.
Even capitalist America had a point in history where disparity was low and the middle class and lower class thrived.
That is no longer the case because of those who removed regulations and changed the laws to suite themselves. And again, those people exist in every type of economy.
I did not say you could not eliminate the influence of money on politics, did I? You did. I countered it, and now you’re implying that it’s impossible to completely get rid of.
You can account for bad actors and power-seekers woth egalitarian distribution of power and a prevention against gaining in power.
How? Without stating how this is accomplished, you’re response is only really saying,
‘you can account for bad actors and power-seekers by living in a perfect world where bad people don’t exist’
If there were an economic system that achieved that it would be a utopia. I don’t know of any utopias on earth.
Equal ownership of the Means of Production. Socialism.
There are still hierarchies in socialist economies. Thats why there is still disparity in socialist economies.
Do you have an example of one of these socialist societies where everyone has equal power?
What hierarchy? Statist hierarchy? That’s why the goal of Socialism is Communism, and nobody has reached Communism yet. Do you think we live at the end of history?
Goals are nice. But we are talking about how to achieve an economic system that actually achieves this. Not just sets goals to.
You are claiming Communism and Socialism can do it but when I ask for an example you say they just haven’t done it yet.
If they have existed for centuries but haven’t achieved their goals yet what makes you think they can?
I think it can be achieved because it’s based in logical progression of real systems. If I can take your exact same argument and use it against Capitalism in pre-revolution France, with a similar lack of logical foundation, I don’t think your argument holds any water. It’s more like a strainer than a bowl.
If it just needs to be “based in logical progression of real systems” to achieve the goal, then why has it not succeeded yet after centuries of existence?
My argument that disparity is caused by people pursuing power and not economic systems?
Please explain how your example of France proves my argument wrong.