"You forget that most of a populace's political influence is dealt at the checkout stand rather than any polling station."

People without support don't get money. Even rich donors aren't giving billions to PACs. On top of this is the fact that money alone only influences the minds of the stupid and apathetic. If you want to argue that the majority of voters are stupid and/or apathetic, I might agree with you; but you claim not to be making that argument.

"You are beginning to slander insult me, and attack my character. "

I merely pointed out that wealth "relative" to "rich" people speaks absolutely nothing of standard of living. Standard of living of the poor and middle class matters. Standard of living "relative" to "rich" people speaks absolutely nothing of that standard of living.

Your references to "relative" wealth are attacks on successful people who've become wealthy. You're speaking as if their relative wealth somehow hurts the standard of living of the middle class and poor, which it clearly does not. Repeatedly referring to irrelevant facts is insulting to anyone reading your posts. I formally ask that you stop insulting readers of this forum and delete such insults before continuing this dialogue.

I didn't attack your character, but the relevance of the "relative" wealth measure you keep citing. I'm concerned with standard of living of the poor and middle class. You're concerned with how successful people are in free markets, regardless if this benefits the poor/middle class or not.

This thread started about egalitarianism in ancient Greece. It has been easily shown that Greece today is far more egalitarian than any part of it was in ancient times.

Now we're talking about egalitarianism in broader terms. I've pointed out that poor/middle class "relative" wealth says absolutely nothing of their standard of living. North Korea and Cuba's people presumably have more wealth "relative" to their rich, yet those countries are shit-holes and their poor/middle class are tragically impoverished.

I am effectively questioning your use of "relative" wealth measures. I'm concerned with the wealth of the poor and middle class; you're concerned with the "relative" wealth of the middle class. You would seem to take issue more with America than Cuba or N. Korea. I find this bizarre because the poor in America are incalculably richer than the poor in Cuba or N. Korea. I'm asking for a defense of your focus on "relative" wealth.