> Money can hire power, if power wants to be hired.
All this means is that individuals have different currency conversions from money into power and vice versa. But in the aggregate, money is liquid power. If you've got the money, odds are good you can find someone with sufficient power that's willing to exchange.
> For example you can say I won't sell my land for any amount of money, and then money can do nothing.
Money can:
* Hire a thug to threaten to break your legs if you don't sell.
* Buy up the neighboring land, pollute the soil, drain the water, obscure the visibility, etc.
* Buy something that you would give up the land for. Private doctor for your son's rare disease. You get the idea.
Another way to look at it is that anyone who can honestly say "I won't sell my land for any amount of money" by implication already has enough money for all of the high priority things money can acquire. Being able say that itself already implies luxury.
So all you're really saying is that money won't buy someone who already has more money than you, which is pretty obvious.
> But then the government can use eminent domain to take it and you learn a little bit about power.
Except that you've taken some of your money and funded campaigns for all of the city council members so they're in your pocket and don't vote to do that. And you've bought advertising in the area to persuade citizens that they shouldn't take it.
Democracy exists fundamentally to push against the long human history of might (-> power -> money) making right. The idea of each human getting one vote is essentially an attempt to reset or flatten out the power currency economy. It's great.
But at least recently in the US, you can watch power and money reverting that back to the old way. Billions of dollars flows into campaigns every election. That money is buying something.
All this means is that individuals have different currency conversions from money into power and vice versa. But in the aggregate, money is liquid power. If you've got the money, odds are good you can find someone with sufficient power that's willing to exchange.
> For example you can say I won't sell my land for any amount of money, and then money can do nothing.
Money can:
* Hire a thug to threaten to break your legs if you don't sell.
* Buy up the neighboring land, pollute the soil, drain the water, obscure the visibility, etc.
* Buy something that you would give up the land for. Private doctor for your son's rare disease. You get the idea.
Another way to look at it is that anyone who can honestly say "I won't sell my land for any amount of money" by implication already has enough money for all of the high priority things money can acquire. Being able say that itself already implies luxury.
So all you're really saying is that money won't buy someone who already has more money than you, which is pretty obvious.
> But then the government can use eminent domain to take it and you learn a little bit about power.
Except that you've taken some of your money and funded campaigns for all of the city council members so they're in your pocket and don't vote to do that. And you've bought advertising in the area to persuade citizens that they shouldn't take it.
Democracy exists fundamentally to push against the long human history of might (-> power -> money) making right. The idea of each human getting one vote is essentially an attempt to reset or flatten out the power currency economy. It's great.
But at least recently in the US, you can watch power and money reverting that back to the old way. Billions of dollars flows into campaigns every election. That money is buying something.