> It means [a billionaire] has more power than me in a capitalistic system, sure. But is that really so wrong or unfair?
Where does that leave democracy?
> I think it’s actually kind of a good thing: most people would just consume like crazy and ruin the planet if they came into that kind of money...
That bears a striking resemblance to some anti-democratic rhetoric I've seen. For instance, one of the rationales the CCP gives for the lack of multi-party democracy in China is that the Chinese people would use their political power irresponsibly, so it's better for everyone that the [insert positive adjectives here] party have a monopoly on political power.
I don’t believe that economic power is the same as coercive power. The former let’s you dangle a carrot in front of people. The latter let’s you threaten to kill them. There’s a difference, and democracy (with constitutional restrictions) should IMHO primarily be a way to distribute coercive power.
Economic power can do much more than dangle a carrot. It can buy coercive power. It can also buy propaganda machines to fool people into believing what economic power needs them to believe. Economic power also gets to decide which projects are worth pursuing in our society.
Where does that leave democracy?
> I think it’s actually kind of a good thing: most people would just consume like crazy and ruin the planet if they came into that kind of money...
That bears a striking resemblance to some anti-democratic rhetoric I've seen. For instance, one of the rationales the CCP gives for the lack of multi-party democracy in China is that the Chinese people would use their political power irresponsibly, so it's better for everyone that the [insert positive adjectives here] party have a monopoly on political power.