In general, people will put up with a lot of governmental issues so long as their own personal lives are fine. There are still issues with wealth inequality leading to some groups having an outsized influence in government which is a concern.
That's totally fair. Is there a way to separate wealth inequality from power inequality? e.g. Let's say I'm ok with Steve Jobs hoarding billions of he creates something game-changing for society over decades of starting/running a business, as long as that doesn't mean his vote is more important than that of an entire state.
Does this boil down to the fact that, in the current political system, wealth can be traded for political power, and if that exchange didn't exist, then wealth wouldn't be an issue in the first place?
> Is there a way to separate wealth inequality from power inequality?
No. Money can buy manpower, resources, time, and political access. Power can buy the laws in your favor and access to resources and manpower and make time in your favor.
> Let's say I'm ok with Steve Jobs hoarding billions
The surplus should have went to the workers. The fact he uses the surplus as his primarily personal slush fund to then reuse is an abomination.
> he creates something game-changing for society over decades of starting/running a business
Anybody could create something game-changing for society. Just because someone isn't acting for shitty SV style actions (make money on exploiting others), doesn't mean it could be game-changing. And people could start doing once their wages were not stagnating and held down.
> as long as that doesn't mean his vote is more important than that of an entire state.
It was worth that much, and other CEOs it too is worth the same.
I've seen time and again the refrain of "We'll bring good jobs in this area, give us a 10 year tax abatement, and do all these improvements". Long story short, the jobs suck, the company moves in free of taxes, sucks off the teat of the city, and then leaves for somewhere else to start the scam all over.
The deal (power) sounds too good with all the money surrounding the plan. And, it is. But Mr. Mayor gets to take claim of a pile of jobs, new industry, and something about revitalization. By the time the smoke clears, Mr Mayor will be long gone up the political foodchain.
Money and power go hand in hand. Power can be converted through time into money. And Money can be converted into power over time.
There is probably a fair exchange rate between CEOs and workers (depending on the risk taken and so on), but naturally, when workers are not in a position to freely negotiate (due to lacking bargaining power, lacking other employment opportunities, lacking other means of keeping themselves healthy, fed and warm), that point is somewhere muuuch lower than the current share of profit going to them (and to capital, in general).
"Does this boil down to the fact that, in the current political system, wealth can be traded for political power, and if that exchange didn't exist, then wealth wouldn't be an issue in the first place?"
I think so. Finding ways to completely eliminate that exchange is a challenge, however. Most of the exchange exists in wealth being able to buy a louder voice, either through lobbying or in the media. It would hard to break that without introducing some other inequity.
>> Is there a way to separate wealth inequality from power inequality?
Why does money buy power? As state control expands and authoritarian thinking is embraced by both parties in the United States, there is more centralized power TO purchase.
It is in everyone's best interest at the top (politicians and billionaires alike) that government continues to expand the size and scope of their aims, while keeping taxes low. Not so much for the average and poor people, but this seems obvious.
By saying that “both parties” are embracing authoritarianism, all you are doing is being useful to the clearly, unabashedly authoritarian party currently busy consolidating its power.
Knocking down strawmen left and right, I'm impressed. Or just the strawmen on your right in this case, I guess.
Both turn to authoritarianism to solve their problems. One party just happens to be more moral in doing so. That makes them preferable, somewhat. But friendly to libertarianism, neither party is, and calling it for what it is doesn't make me an ally of anyone.
