wagesj45

I can imagine an argument for certain artists that are so beloved that their art sells globally or they entertain at a massive scale. Think Taylor Swift, or LeBron James. You can wrangle over the specifics of any individual, of course, but in theory that seems reasonable to me on the face of it. I can also imagine a persuasive argument for a business tycoon that builds up his workforce along with his own coffers and keeps them wanting for nothing. But the circumstances around that are pretty far fetched as far as the typical sociopathic billionaire tycoon goes.

That’s a fair conclusion to draw, but that very well might mean you have to physically fight for the outcome you want.

America is a polarized country, and the two general world views would probably strongly disagree on what constitutes “hate speech”. And you cannot just handwave the issue because there is no clear dominant group. Elections are won and lost on relatively razor thin margins, splitting political power between two very disparate groups. Unless you’re willing to literally fight a war over it, you might find yourself on the wrong side of the definition and thus subject to state application of force.

Well, there is also jail. Hard to use your money if you’re locked up in a gulag. Or if you fall out of a window. Or if your helicopter crashes. Or if you simply disappear.

Only as long as the state enforces their wealth. If Trump really wanted to flex, the state could just seize his assets and nationalize his companies and jail him in trumped up charges. Wealth can’t protect you from the people who can nullify that wealth.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod