- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
You don't get to have any power until you have the money to back it.
Not true, people with a huge of money and moderate levels of power cannot do the same amount of damage as people with lots of power but only a moderate amount of money. Usually the latter abuses said power in the pursuit of more money.
Those who don't have a lot of power, but a lot of money, then use that money to put anyone in power.
Without power, there can be no power to buy.
Which is more corrupting: Power or money?
Of the two. Regarding elected politicians at the state and federal levels.
Please explain why you chose one over the other.
Who has always had the power? Those who had wealth. Those with the most have always controlled those with the least.
No. You're backwards here, people who have always had power have always used it to make themselves wealthy. Limit power as an exploit, they wealthy won't have any power to buy.
Which is more corrupting: Power or money?
Of the two. Regarding elected politicians at the state and federal levels.
Please explain why you chose one over the other.
How does one get powerful without money or wealth?
What do you view "power" to be?
That's a tough one. Power is having the ability to affect others on a grand scale?
Power comes with money, correct?
The point I'm making is that money itself is not something that leads to corruption, it's the power that comes with money that leads to it.
I feel both Money and Power can be considered, somewhat, one in the same.
All in all it's a really confusing poll to discuss...
How does one get powerful without money or wealth?
Wars used to be fought with sticks you know.
As long as there has been war, there has been mercenaries. Bought and paid for. Those with the most sticks usually wins.
Which is more corrupting: Power or money?
Of the two. Regarding elected politicians at the state and federal levels.
Please explain why you chose one over the other.
Wars predate money. But hell, this conversation really is going nowhere. My point is, if you limit the power of the government, there isn't power to be bought. Government, through regulations and rules, often makes it harder to compete with multibillion dollar corporations. Hell, just look at who is funding the push to regulate the E-cig market. The traditional tobacco companies who don't want their margins eroded. My point is, a smaller government is less friendly to those who hold power.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?