So, who is it that would constrain how “the rich” spend their money? The government, I presume? So, in this case, the rich no longer control their money, the government does — and since control infers ownership, it is now the government who are “the rich.”

I don’t see how this is an improvement.

I think the problem here is the assumption that there must inevitably be some distinct class of people who can lord it over everyone else. So long as we remain trapped in that way of thinking, there will always be power-aggrandizing elites — the only important difference between one system and another being the labels we place on those elites.

Your assuming ANY government would be just like our PRESENT modern governments, with unfettered power to shower largesse on friends and destroy it’s enemies by it’s assumed powers in the marketplace. A libertarian/minarchist government would wield no such enumerated power.

If a politician has no power to help your business in any way, then there is certainly no need to try and buy/influence him is there? Please divorce your mind from the idea that today’s distortions are a consequence of capitalism. We live in a mercantilist/corporatist system and always have.

The problem isn’t that corporations are buying off politicians, it’s the fact that politicians have been given/assumed a power that REQUIRES corporations to bid for them.

“Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.” H.L. Mencken.

“Mr. Paul is staunchly anti-illegal immigration and for limiting immigration and lives in a state that was really snatched illegally from Mexico in a similar way that Mr. Raimondo complains about Israel doing to the West Bank.”

What I was thinking, but better said.

Tom, explain my misunderstanding :
Capitalism DOESN’T tend inexorably to monopoly, in the absence of restraint?