@KingOfWhiteAmerica

What is another way that does not involve a ruler at the top with extra legal rights forcing everyone to be poor to achieve economic equality

@shortstories Well, given *that* stipulation, the only alternative is total annihilation.
But yeah I was referring to a Trad Monarchy in the other case.

@KingOfWhiteAmerica

Could a traditional monarchy enable everyone to have equal wealth without making everyone poor

@shortstories It’s within the realm of possibility. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily *practical*, just that it’s a thing within reach for an absolute monarch.

The problem is the people not the laws.

@bobbala @shortstories What I mean is, once per quarter, a Royal Decree could be issued, wherein every wealth-owning individual is mandated to bring 100% of their wealth to the treasury, where it is to be divvied up equally amongst all the Crown subjects.
It doesn’t mean it’s a good idea; it just means it could conceivably be a thing a kingdom could be into. I’m sure if it was a priority the state apparatus could hammer out all the necessary logistics.

If you can't keep what you kill, you don't go ahuntin'.

@bobbala @shortstories Well and that’s the thing; in an absolute monarchy, they’re not bound to do this thing; they can leave well enough alone and do whatever works; and then rapidly change course at will, without layer upon layer of endless bureaucracy tying it up.
None of this means any of these particular policy decisions are wise; just that it’s technically possible.
Actually running a Nation in a way that works probably doesn’t at all involve such vast redistribution. It’s kind of a dumb idea. But technically possible.

Nobody does more than the US right now.
We could use some red tape. This is unlimited budget nanny and police state in action. That's why customer demand is irrelevant.

The only thing "tied up" is what they don't want to do anyway. We don't even vote to go to war. It was Trump that launched missles into Syria.