15 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
I can't say I was disappointed in the article, I knew the author was going to take things out of context.
For starters, the word "Extreme" is vague enough to be interpreted however you'd like. Is 2x wealth bad? Is 9999999999999999999999999x bad?(probably)
I just wish the quotes were more direct.
Also Plato insisted on a guardian class that sacrificed themselves for the greater good. Idealism is fun, but it's not great for application to the real world.
I'm far more interested on utilizing humans in a way that works in accordance with our genetic predispositions... Although even Machiavelli suggests weaponizing religion, so maybe we can brainwash people to be altruistic against their own interests.
Comment by Sammoonryong at 14/02/2025 at 19:25 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
feel like this extreme can be worked on by watchin numbers and alogrothms you can play or hire economists for. and regulating that by taxing properly. but oh well with our corrupt system of lobbyism etc. not really possible.
Comment by ohyoushouldnthavent at 16/02/2025 at 07:30 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Well, the article says: "To this extent, his character of the Athenian Stranger counsels that in an ideal state that the richest households should have no more than four times the wealth and property of the poorest. Those with more will have their surpluses taxed and drawn back to the state for public uses or redistribution.". So no more than a 1:4 ratio would be ideal, apparently