Yesterday, I posted about how I was shocked about the degeneracy of meme coin communities. I pondered a bit why I felt that way and my conclusion was that, since I am living in a democracy, my voice weighs as much as theirs. And here lies, in my opinion, the deeper problem.

We (sorry, I say we, knowing fully well that a lot of people do not live in democracies and some (or even many) countries call themselves democracies when in fact they are really not) celebrate that we have left the past behind where the few ruled and exploited the many and that now everyone has a voice.

However, this can only work if a majority is 'diligent' and has a somewhat low time preference. Similar to a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network, you can carry out a 51% attack on a democracy and I claim that this has already happened and we, sort of, crossed the point of no return.

Being reckless and having a high time preference is rewarded by the state. If you save, invest and build wealth you basically put a target on your back. Not only are you financing all the have-nots, on top of that no one is even thanking you for your contribution but instead you are vilified by society. How does he have money and I don't, he must stolen it our exploited someone. Taxes are rising and rising and rising and fewer and fewer people are actually net payers. When a majority is net receiver and this majority can vote, they will always vote for more freebies not understanding that they are sawing off the branch they are sitting on.

Property taxes alone have risen over 1000% in the last ten years. The local government justifies this because it "motivates" owners to sell (no joke). There are politicians on TV openly advocating for expropriation. They are still not majority leaders but the fact that it is even discussed is insane. More wealth and inheritance taxes are on the horizon completely destroying any ambition to achieve something.

The truth is, people are created equal but then their actions and decisions lead to different outcomes and make them unequal. I hope that in a better future this will be a commonly accepted notion. This does not mean that we cannot be compassionate and care for each other and help the weaker individuals but it also cannot be forbidden to state this truth. I'd say feudalism got one thing right on a theoretical level. Only who contributes and who has a stake in something gets to have a say. The nobility had land and the duty to defend. What's bad was not this basic notion but the lack of opportunity and social mobility if you were born outside of nobility.

I'd be interested in what kind of system you would deem fair, the details obviously matter, but very generally speaking I would say that only net contributors to a system (company, state, community, whatever) should have a say and net receivers should not. Must not.