Perhaps if everyone started from the same point this would be true. However, not only has everyone not started from the same point, there are forces -- those who already have money -- who are spending money in an effort to brainwash those who do not into doing things that benefit them indirectly.

> Perhaps if everyone started from the same point this would be true. However, not only has everyone not started from the same point

By deciding to have children or not (and if yes: how many?), parents vote about the distribution of the startup positions for the next generation.

EDIT: In other words: Poor people should rather be angry about their parents than about the system.

I honestly don't even know what to say...

1. "Parents vote about the distribution of the startup positions for the next generation." What?

2. "Poor people should rather be angry about their parents than about the system." Are you serious? What good is that going to do?

Sorry, but you must be living quite a privileged, or sheltered life if you believe these things.

Reproduction has a very well-earned taboo thanks to the terrible eugenics trends of the early 20th century. But, this taboo prevents us from seeing some things clearly. One of those things we tend to avoid thinking about as a society is the who/when/why of parenting, and the long-term effects of those decisions (or lack thereof).

The movie Idiocracy satirized one aspect of this, but it still doesn't get much discussion in terms of family planning on a societal scale -- whether to encourage or discourage childbearing, whether some groups should be encouraged more than others and the moral questions thereby raised, etc.

So, acting shocked and invoking "privilege" doesn't move the conversation forward, when there is ample underexplored territory in which to do so.

> Sorry, but you must be living quite a privileged, or sheltered life if you believe these things.

Wrong.

Could you provide an algorithm for deciding how many children to have? Then could you apply it to an average American family in 1950? I bet that any algorithm would tell them 'Are you crazy to even consider having kids? You just witnessed a global war that took tens of millions of lives. The world economy is still anemic. And the world is on the cusp of the nuclear war.' And every algorithm will be proven wrong by the baby-boomers generation. I think your argument is a suggestion to over-rationalize in the absence of information. Exactly what the article is describing.

It's not a democracy when some people have exponentially more votes than others.