Search Results
7/6/2025, 1:36:07 PM
>>63946859
>It literally is the traditional rich who have the money to control political and regulatory decisions
When voting was introduced, political power was separated from financial. It gave poorer people a non-financial method of acquiring power and taking control.
Julius Caesar is a fine example of this. The Julii were poor and therefore sidelined in the Roman political scene. Caesar grew in political power through military feats which enabled him to amass enough riches to take a stab at the premier league, so to speak. Yet even then Caesar was still the most junior member of the Triumvirate, the least affluent. Pompey was the richest.
Here's where you'd think that the richer guy can simply bribe the poorer guy to stay in line.
But why would the poorer guy accept bribes, when he has the political power to control the situation? With the power of legislation and the state military in his hands, why should he take bribes, when he can take TRIBUTE?
The rich are often in cahoots with the authorities, yes.
The rich can bribe the authorities, yes.
But the authorities can also regulate and legislate the rich, and do. If they didn't have this power, the rich wouldn't bother trying to bribe them.
Or did you believe that the politicians are fighting the rich altruistically? On behalf of the poor? "Give us power and control and taxes, we'll fight the rich for your sake, no not ours, trust us"
Therefore be wary of giving so much power to the politicians, because you feared the billionaires, that you end up binding yourself to those who wield a different kind of power for their own ends.
>It literally is the traditional rich who have the money to control political and regulatory decisions
When voting was introduced, political power was separated from financial. It gave poorer people a non-financial method of acquiring power and taking control.
Julius Caesar is a fine example of this. The Julii were poor and therefore sidelined in the Roman political scene. Caesar grew in political power through military feats which enabled him to amass enough riches to take a stab at the premier league, so to speak. Yet even then Caesar was still the most junior member of the Triumvirate, the least affluent. Pompey was the richest.
Here's where you'd think that the richer guy can simply bribe the poorer guy to stay in line.
But why would the poorer guy accept bribes, when he has the political power to control the situation? With the power of legislation and the state military in his hands, why should he take bribes, when he can take TRIBUTE?
The rich are often in cahoots with the authorities, yes.
The rich can bribe the authorities, yes.
But the authorities can also regulate and legislate the rich, and do. If they didn't have this power, the rich wouldn't bother trying to bribe them.
Or did you believe that the politicians are fighting the rich altruistically? On behalf of the poor? "Give us power and control and taxes, we'll fight the rich for your sake, no not ours, trust us"
Therefore be wary of giving so much power to the politicians, because you feared the billionaires, that you end up binding yourself to those who wield a different kind of power for their own ends.
ID: z2hGfMo2/pol/508281040#508281040
6/22/2025, 5:48:08 AM
Apologize. She never was going to send you to die for Israel.
6/18/2025, 11:08:57 PM
Are a couple million Illegal Wetbacks worth dying for Israel??
Page 1