Super-wealth is toxic to democracy


A democracy’s survival depends upon the cooperation and equality of its members, says the Philosopher’s Beard.  The wealthy, with their independence and ability to buy influence, undermine democracy, and should either have to give up their money or relinquish membership in a democratic society, he says.

Categories: General
John de Rosier

8 Responses

  1. paco33 says:

    What a great example of the thinking of the totalitarian left — use the power of the government to, in direct violation of multiple constitutional provisions, confiscate the wealth of the rich or exile them to another country. And all in the name of “saving” democracy! Well, at least there’s no call for the rich to identify themselves by wearing an arm patch (a dollar sign or the German word for money perhaps)or forcing them into re-education camps — yet.

  2. Ann says:

    Which will have been seen as perfectly fine under Obama.

  3. Steven says:

    Yeah…I can’t stand overachievers. I remember this little girl all through middle school would get all A’s. She should have given up her A’s to the rest of us and settled for C+’s. Those stinking New York Yankees and their 27 World Championships. Can’t we take at least half of those championships and give them to the Chicago Cubs? Don’t get me going on Michael Jordan. Who was he to think he was better than the other players. I demand we take 50% of his points scored and give them to Jimmer Fredette. For the love of God…can’t we all be slightly below average.

  4. Eihcir says:

    I cringe knowing these types of people live among us.

  5. RolloMartins says:

    The wealthy 0.1% should not have their wealth taken away. But neither should they have the only votes–which they now do have, as it is they who pull the purse strings on gov’t and corporate media. The vast majority of people voting will vote not with their minds, not with their hearts, but will vote as they are told, through the media (and mostly in the form of lies and propaganda unvetted by true journalism). Whoever spends the most in the most efficient way, will win. And we will lose.

  6. Ann says:

    How ridiculous. Can we please stop looking under rocks for these types of article blips?

    In a democratic society like ours at the beginning and like the Ancient Greeks, politicians paid back the community by using their own wealth to gain influence and even construct works for the people, put on festivals, etc. I think this may have been what the article was trying, unsuccessfully, to reach for, or should have anyway.

  7. Lefty says:

    There are 3,500,000 fewer employed Americans now, than there were on election night, 2008. There are 2,450,000 more unemployed Americans now, than there were on election night, 2008. According to the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, anyway. (

    The middle class seems to be vanishing under Mr. Obama’s economic stewardship. President Obama is a Democrat, though, isn’t he?

    What was bad, employment and unemployment, is worse, now, 3 1/2 years after we elected Mr. Obama as our 44th President. And the middle class is shrinking, with President Obama in office.

    Remember when President Obama and the Democratic party majorities in both houses of Congress enacted President Obama’s Stimulus scheme, and Obamacare? That was the time to act on employment and unemployment. When President Obama and those Democratic party majorities were shellacked in the mid-term elections of 2012, and the Republicans took the House of Representatives, President Obama still had a Democratic party majority in the Senate, but the best time for President Obama to have acted on jobs had passed. Why did President Obama and the Democratic party majorities in both houses of Congress fail to act effectively on jobs, when they had their best chance to do so?

    Middle class people miss the 3,500,000 jobs that they have lost since they elected Mr. Obama as our 44th President.

  8. iknowtruthismine says:

    Gee Ann, how could concentrating 1/2 of all wealth in the pockets of 4000, or so, self-serving autocrats be a threat to democracy? I’ll have to give that some thought……DUH!