Richest 1% Will Own More Than All The Rest By 2016

Of course you are probably young and have very little life experience to base your remarks on.

Hello mr. snooty douchebag, I'm older than you and I work in law enforcement, have two degrees including nuclear reactor operation and reactor physics, and am working towards a degree as an ultrasound technician. Try. Again. Kiddo.

The government continually creates more capital by printing more fiat currency.

Currency and capital are made-up things. They represent something physical, whether people think about it or not. There is no unlimited capital because there is not unlimited resources that the capital (or the currency) can represent. No matter how you wish to alter or phrase it, or tinker with it, in the end it represents something from effort made by individual workers or by products sold etc. It can even simply be representative of energy input into the biosphere by the Sun. But none of this is infinite, and to treat it as such is to either take a massive toll on workers, to take a massive toll on the environment and the resources in it, or to upend the economy itself.

But all of that aside. Workers are not temporarily inconvenienced millionaires. Not everyone gets to be a Captain of Industry. There is a limit in the workforce, there is a limit to resources, there is a limit to production. This limits capital. This limits currency. If the government prints endless currency the economy collapses, because each unit represents less reality, but I'm sure you know this. If it treats capital as infinite then it exploits its workers to death in some fashion or another, and most likely it allocates less of its limited resources or currency to them while controlling more centrally among the oligarchs.

Government by it's very nature takes your rights to income and freedom.

Nonsense, it allows them to exist in the first place. There is no such thing as a "right". That is a made-up, nebulous concept that is only defined by a society in agreement and that society needs to be able to enforce something that foundational, which requires a government with the power and authority to do so equitably. And especially when discussing "income" which isn't something natural in the first place.

As for a right to "income", that needs to be defined. What income? Do you have a "right" to make .... what? If you make X amount of money doing Y amount of work today, and tomorrow I cut your pay to 1/2 of X, while you still do Y, which do you have a "right" to? Do I now have a "right" to the money I am making by paying you less? It's all nebulous, it's all meaningless, it is all void of objectivity unless you set some specific bar, by law, through a government, to what you must be paid.

Because it is determined by those who hold the keys to the chest, when left to their own devices they will doll out as little as possible.

Rights exist only because a government allows us to agree that they exist without necessitating violent action against one another continuously. An example of a society like this would be the 8th-10th century Icelandic society, where they lamented the fact (continuously in their sagas, such as Njáls saga and Hrafnkels saga) that their society was founded on ideals and the only way to enforce them was to slaughter each other in endless violence because there was no other means of enforcement. This way of animals without controls is that they have a "right" to whatever they can control through violence. This is why we have government, to be that control.

Most Government Regulations are written by the very people that are to be regulated in order to stifle competition that may innovate and improve the human condition. It is NOT business alone that does this, but Government encourages it.

To an extent, true, but that is where further law and regulation places limits on how one can influence the other. There will never a perfect divorce between the two, but you are thinking in far-too American/modern-westerner terms as far as government. You're limited in how you think they can function (and that's not an insult, but unless you have an ancient history degree, as I do, then it's probably true).

Study actual democratic governments, such as Athens' government during the Classical period of Greece, pre-Hellenistic. Everyone is forced to be in government. That's what a "government of the people" was. You didn't just choose to be involved, you had to be involved. You had to hold positions in their version of Congress, for a year, and then others were chosen. They used a highly efficient system of randomization for determining juries, laws, rules, etc. which was designed specifically to prevent corruption and influence.

Of course their system suffered other problems (tyranny of the majority, as seen with the generals from the Battle of Arginusae and with Socrates himself).

So no, they don't need to be melded. They are in our society, because we lack a system that in any meaningful way prevents it.

/r/Futurology Thread Link - oxfamamerica.org