I prefer those with more resources to have more say over the running of our country. On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country. Furthermore the structure of society should be organized to help those that know what they are doing. An unpopular opinion however.
> On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country.
They know what is best for them. It has nothing to do with what is best for the country.
As you are advocating for an oligarchy, I suggest you take a look at all the oligarchies around the world: don't you notice that they are all, without exception, terrible places to live, and not even good places for striving economies? Surely, there must be some fault in your reasoning.
On the contrary, most great countries in the world have something in common: they tend to be democratic, they tend to be quite equal in the distribution of income, and they also tend to be run as social democracies.
We are democratic. I’m advocating for letting capital invest in politicians and advertise their positions freely. $20 donations from a widespread group of people can also make their opinions heard effectively.
If you seized all of Bill Gates’ wealth it would fund the USA for 3 months. Do you think making Gates a pauper to fund our profligate politicians is more effective than letting Gates keep his wealth and invest as he sees fit?
I would argue Bill Gates is 10000x a better allocator of resources than the government. So maybe let him keep his wealth considering the government prints his net worth every month.
It's not just an unpopular opinion, it also shows an utter lack of critical thinking.
Do those with more resources owe them to chance, or did they do actual work?
Of those who worked for more resources, how did they achieve those resources? Are those ways actually in any way beneficial to society at large, or are they not replicable across wide swaths? Or are they possibly deliberately not beneficial to the country, but to those with resources?
Is it possible that growing wealth is easier if you already have access to wealth, merely by having that access?
Why do you think people with more resources actually know what they are doing? There is plentiful evidence to the contrary. (See e.g. Enron)
There is nothing inherent in a free market that means people with more resources are somehow more qualified to lead a country. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but if you'd like to make that point, you'll need to go well beyond a simple declaration of faith.
Is it reasonable to assume that the wealthiest people are more interested in optimizing society for what is best for the country as a whole or optimizing it so they can acquire more wealth/power? How often are those two possible optimizations in conflict?
I think it is an unpopular opinion for two primary reasons. There are inherent conflicts of interest. Being good at one thing (often being really good at being born with the right parents) does not necessarily correlate with decision making on behalf of society at large.
If anything, people with a track record of amassing wealth should be treated with more suspicion on entering public service.
If all of their other decisions are geared toward increasing their wealth, one has to wonder whether the decision to enter public service is also geared toward increasing their own wealth.
There is a sibling comment explaining why you might not actually want to live in an oligarchy, but regardless of your preference, there are a couple of flaws in your logic.
First. The greatest predictor of individual wealth is their parents’ wealth. This undermines the whole notion of the free market (or at least in its current state) giving rise to a meritocracy.
Second. Statistically, in a completely free and fair economy where all trade is zero-sum and every player will either loose or gain from a trade is up to pure chance, the money in the economy will accumulate to fewer and fewer hands as the number of trades increase. This is a pure statistical phenomena, meaning that as long as some players have more wealth then others, those players have an upper hand in any future trades for that reason only.
The meritocracy of capitalism is a pretty well debunked theory at this point.
If player1 can make the same widget with less resources than player2, its not zero-sum. That does often entail that player1 has some advantage, which could be any number of things. Is that OK?
It happens because the less wealthy player has a lot more to loose then gain in an unequal economy. That is even if a trade outcome is favorable to the less wealthy player, it is unlikely that the outcome is significant enough to change the balance. However it is much more likely if an outcome is unfavorable that it will significantly hinder any future opportunities for the poorer player.
On the other hand, a loss for the wealthier player is unlikely to significantly effect future outcomes for them. The only likely way for a wealthy player to have a significant loss if they land a devastatingly bad deal with another equally or more wealthy player. The chances of that happening at random is pretty low overall, and gets lower the wealthier you are.
