I think I get what you're saying here but it seems like a bit of a false equivalency. Money doesn't work without a system that supports it which makes separating it from those systems a misnomer. A pharmaceutical treatment is consistent whether it's administered once or one million times.

You're not gonna win this one, DwnWthVwls. Frown has a +10 against Jersey Logic. Plus, with Chula as his wingfish, he can call in a Boston Boys support squad.

so youre arguing its impossible to set up a system where wealth is not oppressive? I dont see how you could make that claim, but if you were to demonstrate it id be willing to change my position.

Do you have an example that shows that it is possible or at least one that gets close? Because as far as I know money=influence and power every time it was around.

Yes, but power =/= oppression. Oppression is multifaceted and while money may certainly be a driving force, it is definitely not the only variable.

And I don't have the burden of proof. I'm not convinced of the claim that wealth = oppression.

I added influence as an edit.

You also said this

I don't think that this is exclusive to our current system but rather that it's ubiquitous across every system that we've attempted that involved money. The burden of proof is now on you to show a system that successfully separates power and wealth.

I suppose that the real disagreement here might be that an ever-present opportunity for oppression isn't the same as oppression and I guess that comes down to opinion.

You can’t get no honey if you ain’t got no money.

Romance without finance just don’t make sense

IT’S A DRAG

Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage
This I tell you, brother: you can't have one without the other.

Church