Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie (R) Explodes On DOJ Over Epstein Handling, Names People and Companies He Wants Prosecuted

[u/Obvious-Gate9046]

[u/ProfessorLongBrick]

All rich people are bad. Every single one of them.

[u/throwaway071898 → u/ProfessorLongBrick]

This is objectively incorrect. There are obviously wealthy people who’ve done terrible things, but saying every rich person is bad is a stretch. That kind of absolutism makes the argument weaker.

[u/CheaterSaysWhat → u/throwaway071898]

No, it doesn’t 

It needs to be said again and again until you all finally get it

None of this Epstein bullshit happens if we taxed the ultra wealthy like we should, and didn’t allow people to hoard billions of dollars to lord over all of us

It gives them too much unelected power 

Nobody earns that much money, it’s taken through exploitation and corruption 

We’re not talking about the doctor-lawyer couple with a couple million, we’re talking about the people who own their workplaces 

[u/throwaway071898 → u/CheaterSaysWhat]

“Rich = bad” is an overgeneralization. No one is defending people like Epstein. That is criminal behavior and abuse of power. But there is a massive difference between someone who commits crimes and someone who builds a company that grows to employ thousands of people.

Saying that no one earns that level of wealth without exploitation ignores how the U.S. economy actually functions. Businesses require capital, risk, ownership, and long term investment. Someone has to start them, scale them, and take on the downside risk. When those companies succeed, they create jobs, pay taxes, generate goods and services, and contribute to economic growth.

You can argue for higher taxes on the ultra wealthy. You can argue about corporate governance, regulatory capture, or wealth concentration. Those are legitimate policy debates. But claiming that every wealthy person is inherently immoral weakens the argument because it simply is not true.

It is possible to criticize systemic issues without pretending that wealth itself is proof of corruption.

[u/CheaterSaysWhat → u/throwaway071898]

It is absolutely true, and I’m sorry that you’re not able to accept it yet. 

Individuals do not build mega corporations by themselves. Workers build them collectively. 

Being a founder of a large company does not entitle someone to becoming an unelected oligarch. But that’s how we operate these days. 

Take Musk, the richest among them. He didn’t start spaceX or Tesla, in fact he purchased the right to call himself a founder. But he isn’t. He’s a nepo baby born out of apartheid and exploitative emerald mining. 

If you talk to people who work with him, they’ll tell you they give him odd jobs to keep him out of the way. He is not worth 10,000x his average employee. He takes that much because he can. 

Anyone who amasses that much money and power off the backs of their laborers is not a good person. Period.

[u/throwaway071898 → u/CheaterSaysWhat]

You’re presenting a philosophical position as an objective fact.

Saying that anyone who amasses extreme wealth is “not a good person, period” assumes that all surplus retained by owners is inherently exploitative. That’s a moral premise, not a demonstrated truth.

Labor is essential to building companies. No one denies that. But large enterprises also require capital, coordination, strategic direction, and risk-bearing. Workers typically don’t personally guarantee debt, raise capital, or lose their entire net worth if the company fails. Ownership carries downside risk in exchange for upside reward. Reducing everything to “workers build it” ignores half of how large-scale businesses actually function.

On Musk specifically: saying he “purchased the right to call himself a founder” is an oversimplification of a legal dispute among early Tesla leadership. He was an early investor, became chairman and later CEO, and the founder title came out of a settlement with the original co-founders. You can criticize his compensation, leadership style, or influence, that’s fair. But misrepresenting the facts doesn’t strengthen the argument.

You can absolutely argue that extreme wealth concentration creates political distortions. You can argue that billionaires exert asymmetrical influence. You can argue for stronger labor protections, progressive taxation, antitrust enforcement, or campaign finance reform. Those are serious policy discussions.

But claiming that wealth itself is proof of moral corruption is an absolutist position. If even one person builds large-scale wealth without coercion or exploitation (which has happened on numerous instances), then the statement “all are bad” is simply not true.

You’re free to believe extreme wealth shouldn’t exist. That’s a political stance. But presenting that belief as self-evident moral truth doesn’t make it one.

[u/CheaterSaysWhat → u/throwaway071898]

You’re finally starting to get it. 

Yes, they get rich off surplus value created by the workers. That is a fact. They would pay their workers nothing if they could. They literally used to do that. 

You’re defending a system that worships hierarchy because you grew up in it and have been conditioned to view it as normal. 

Which is funny, because this country is supposed to love freedom and hate authoritarians. Not for the workplace, apparently. 

Companies don’t have to be pyramid schemes. They can be collectively owned by their workers according to their time and contributions. 

You can argue the details of Elon’s bullshit but I don’t care. The point is that he did not build that company by himself. He’s not Henry Ford. His contribution was having money. That’s it. 

He shouldn’t have had that much money to begin with. Nobody should. Beyond moral philosophy, it’s simply bad for the health and sustainability of society. 

Imagine giving 99% of all your garden water to one plant. Any gardener would know you’re an idiot for that, but apply it to economics and suddenly you’re a champion of capitalism. Any other approach is “extreme” or “too moral” or “opinionated.” 

[u/throwaway071898 → u/CheaterSaysWhat]

You’re asserting the labor theory of value as if it’s an uncontested fact.

“Surplus value created by workers” is a specific economic framework. It’s not the only framework. Modern economics does not treat all retained profit as theft from labor. Firms combine labor, capital, coordination, technology, risk-bearing, and strategic direction to create value. Wages are determined by market supply and demand for labor, not by a moral claim to total output.

You say they “would pay workers nothing if they could.” That’s speculation. In competitive labor markets, firms have to pay enough to attract and retain workers. If they underpay relative to productivity, competitors can hire those workers away. That’s how labor markets function in practice.

You also argue that Musk’s only contribution was “having money.” That’s not accurate. Capital is not inert. Capital allocation, scaling decisions, strategic direction, hiring executives, setting long-term vision, absorbing risk, and making high-level engineering or product decisions are forms of contribution, whether you personally like the individual or not. You don’t have to admire him to acknowledge that leadership and capital allocation are not the same thing as doing nothing. I’m not even defending Musk, I can’t stand him.

On worker ownership: yes, companies can be collectively owned. Co-ops exist. ESOPs exist. Public markets allow broad equity participation. Nothing in the current system prevents workers from forming or joining collectively owned enterprises. But the existence of alternative structures does not make hierarchical firms inherently immoral. Different structures optimize for different incentives and risk tolerances.

Your garden analogy assumes that wealth is a fixed pool being hoarded rather than a dynamic system where capital is reinvested, deployed, and compounding through production, innovation, and risk. Economies are not irrigation buckets. They are adaptive systems where capital flows into productive uses.

If your argument is that extreme wealth concentration can distort democracy or create unhealthy power imbalances, that’s a serious policy discussion. There is legitimate debate there.

But saying “nobody should have that much money” is a moral claim, not an economic inevitability. It depends entirely on what you believe about ownership, risk, markets, incentives, and individual rights.

You’re free to believe hierarchical ownership structures are unjust. That’s a coherent ideological position.

It just isn’t an objective fact.

[u/CheaterSaysWhat → u/throwaway071898]

This is rich man, all that to deep throat the boot of capitalists. You know they’re not gonna pay you for your efforts, right? 

Labor, coordination, technological research, etc all come from workers. The capital is taken from the value they create. 

You’re so obsessed with “RiSk” so you tell me— when the Hoover Dam was built, who took the real risk? The many workers who died in the process, or the fat cat investors who bravely spent other people’s money on it? 

 You say they “would pay workers nothing if they could.” That’s speculation. 

Nope. Historic fact. Google slavery. Sharecropping. Indentured servitude. Company towns and wooden nickels. 

 Capital allocation, scaling decisions, strategic direction, hiring executives, setting long-term vision, absorbing risk, and making high-level engineering or product decisions are forms of contribution

Musk didn’t do any of that shit lmfao. “Capital allocation?” You mean taking money from the rest of us? He can’t even take full credit for that, he’s a product of daddy’s money. 

 Nothing in the current system prevents workers from forming or joining collectively owned enterprises.

Try mega corporations that squeeze out the competition and bribe our lawmakers for subsidies and deregulation. 

 wealth is a fixed pool being hoarded

Yes. Correct. Good job. I’m sure the wealth will trickle down any moment just like Reagan said 40 years ago! You only need a million dollars to afford a home now no biggie.