Backroom Errata

[Montmorency]

Money is power to order the material world. The state's power runs as far as the material world does, no more but not inevitably less. The purpose of taxing the rich must be framed in terms of breaking their power, not in terms of 'paying for things'.

Wealth may be immoral in its own right, but unaccountable power is even worse.

Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity. The United States is a national state which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.

[Viking]

Money is power to order the material world. The state's power runs as far as the material world does, no more but not inevitably less. The purpose of taxing the rich must be framed in terms of breaking their power, not in terms of 'paying for things'.

So you move power from one small group of people to another small group of people, effectively concentrating the power at the hands of a smaller number of people overall. Then what?

Wealth may be immoral in its own right, but unaccountable power is even worse.

No one is unaccountable.

[Gilrandir]

No one is unaccountable.

Except Putin and Kim.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Except Putin and Kim.

They too can be held accountable, though the "actionable threshold" for an effort to 'bring them to justice' would be very high.

[Montmorency]

So you move power from one small group of people to another small group of people, effectively concentrating the power at the hands of a smaller number of people overall. Then what?

Aha, you made the wrong assumption. Eroding concentration of power is the broader principle here. A purely statist or managerial approach runs the risk you describe, but the trend today is to emphasize the transition to decentralized and communitarian organization of society. Without beginning to debate the timescale or balance of powers between local and megapolitan, the goal is exactly to diffuse practical power into more and more hands.

No one is unaccountable.

OK, but no one is truly powerful when set against the transcendent might of the Divine. Ask this guy -

They too can be held accountable, though the "actionable threshold" for an effort to 'bring them to justice' would be very high.

he knows his Jesus stuff.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh, I don't think it necessarily has to await the next life (what e're that may be), though Putin and Kim et al will face that hurdle as we all must.

In this life, holding such a leader to account requires existential risk for you and those close to you. Pretty much an "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" level risk with a functionally greater likelihood that any but the last will be taken away from you. Not many are willing to play at those stakes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...he knows his Jesus stuff.

Kind of you to say, but any number of hard-shell Baptists would tell you that I, as a Catholic, simply do not.

I don't agree, but nor would I claim myself to be much of a theologian.

[Crandar]

They too can be held accountable, though the "actionable threshold" for an effort to 'bring them to justice' would be very high.

Depends on what you mean by accountable. No ruler is omnipotent, neither Egyptian pharaohs nor Sarmatian chocolate magnates. Every regime is based on the collaboration and toleration of a part of the society, in order to survive. It may be the nobility, industrialists, shopkeepers, the court, the tribe or even the people, but everyone is accountable. Every wise ruler should know that he needs to fulfill certain expectations, as long as he doesn't wish to get down-voted, overthrown, poisoned or exiled.

[Montmorency]

Oh nooo

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Montmorency]

I would define nihilism as a combination of three basic elements: a refusal to hope for anything except the ultimate vindication of hopelessness; a rejection of all values, especially values widely regarded as sacrosanct (equality, posterity, and legality); and a glorification of destruction, including self-destruction—or as Walter Benjamin put it, “self-alienation” so extreme that humanity “can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure.” Nihilism is less passive and more perverse than simple despair. “Nihilism is not only despair and negation,” according to Albert Camus, “but, above all, the desire to despair and to negate.”

Dayum.