RE: Topics You Can Never Change My Mind On
"Politicians used coercion to expropriate wealth" - as if you feel sympathy for the plight of the excessively wealthy? I do not understand the defense of excessive wealth. The average human makes $1.5 million over their lifetime. It is mind boggling to me how we allow so much accumulation of wealth by such few people. I'm not saying a government has to enforce this necessarily, although I clearly favor a redistributive tax system. I even think a change in philanthropic culture would be better than what we currently have. It seems to me though, that we are seeing a hoarding of wealth today that hearkens back to the era of "Robber Barons." Luxury items, and unsustainably lavish living are fundamentally immoral in the face of the inequality of this world. Again, wealthy individuals could change this themselves, but they don't.
Political plunder is the means by which the "excessively wealthy" prosper. Wealth alone is not an indicator of immorality. Voluntary exchange is mutually beneficial and the economy is not a zero-sum game. However, corporate fat cats benefit from tax-funded subsidies, bailouts, price controls, and other forms of interventionism as a means to plunder the economy.
The population of the wealthy is so small relative to the world's population, that I don't think you can disconnect "political plunder" with the immorality of hoarding wealth, and living lavishly in the face of global inequality.
I would argue that basic voluntary exchange is not at odds with measures preventing the gross accumulation of wealth.
I believe that you defeat "political plunder" through civic education, civic engagement, and the widespread organization of average citizens to properly participate in self-governance, which is our representative democracy.
Representative democracy is a myth. Self-government is antithetical to politics. Even if there were 100% voter participation in an election, how can the favored candidate of 50%+1 represent the 50%-1 in any rational sense? And where is the agent-principal relationship between those who voted for the winner, much less between the winner and those who opposed him or declined to participate in the sham altogether?
You speak as if every election is won 51% - 49% and that we only have one elected official each. We have a vibrant system, that with a properly informed and educated populace can produce a much better future. The sustained effort to dismantle institutions that benefit the working class has eroded the strength of the electorate over the past 30 years. Divisive propaganda has torn us apart in many ways, despite the fact that most American agree on most fundamental values. The embarrassing spectacle of the republican party presidential primaries over the past few elections makes it not so difficult to see where our problems lie. American democracy is only a sham when good people sit out, abdicate their civic duty, and let monied interests control the show.
None of these "refinements" affect my core arguments.