Ending property and wealth as a legitimate basis for power and leadership

[FarCenter]

The victory of the United States and the British Empire in WW II, coupled with the demise of the USSR after the Cold War, left the world in the grasp of a political and economic system where power and leadership were legitimated by property and wealth. The monarchs and nobility of pre-WW I had been deposed, and noble birth was no longer a legitimate basis for power. But the financier, bankers, industrialist and the heirs to great wealth had won, and politicians, philosophers, economist, think tanks, and journalists together promoted the idea that property and wealth were sacrosanct and confered upon those who had them the right and privilege of political and social leadership.

It is time to deny that property and wealth are sacrosanct and to deny that they legitimize power and leadership outside of the narrowly cicumscribed limits of business.

Character, competence and accomplishment are more appropriate to legitimize the right to power and leadership.

Character should be judged by adherence to universal ethical principles, and leaders should lead open, transparent lives so that the electorate may judge them fairly.

Competence should be judged by the intelligence, skills, and insights that a leader can bring to solve real economic and social problems, and not on platforms constructed by political consultants, speeches written by speechwriters, or a facility for glibness in debates.

Accomplishment should be judged by a track record of activities that have benefited society, not on the ability to organize a campaign, raise money and gather supporters.

[Odin2005]

1. But, but, but, that's COMMUNIST!!!1!!11!

Everyone knows that wealth is a sign of Gods favor! Why do you hate God? :sarcasm:

[phasma ex machina]

3. Speaking of communion people need to share the good (ie high paying) truly productive jobs.

No more useless paper pushing jobs that serve mostly to obfuscate ill gotten gains of banksters and fascist corporations. All of the able bodied work a couple days a week at a good (ie high paying) productive job and spend the rest of their days on noble pursuits such as arts and sciences. Instead of money grubbing every waking moment trying to cope with a thoroughly corrupt bankster's wet dream economy.

[RKP5637]

14. I like the way you think!!!

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[FarCenter]

4. I didn't say that private property should be abolished, just circumscribed

Before the Thirty Years War, the basis for legitimate power was religion. Monarchs ruled by divine right, but they received their crowns from the Pope, God's representative on earth.

We still have clergy, and religion still provides a function within society. But religion and a claim to speak for God no longer legitimizes secular power and leadership (at least for most people, most places).

Before WW I & II, the basis for legitimate power was noble birth and the inheritance of power.

We still have monarchs and nobility in some countries, but their roles are very limited. They are no longer looked upon as legitimate rulers (at least in most places).

There is no reason to not continue to have people with great amounts of wealth and property, especially people who have demonstrated that they can contribute to society by building great businesses. However, those people should not be able to use the property and wealth in order to extend there influence beyond the world of business into other spheres of society.

Actually, I do think that just as inherited political power is now limited, inheritance of property and wealth should be far more limited than it is. There is no good reason for four Waltons to be worth $20 billion each, when they have not made any commensurate contribution to either business narrowly defined or to society generally.

[PETRUS]

5. In a nation that purports to place a high value on equality of opportunity

...a progressive inheritance tax is one of the more easily justifiable policy instruments.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. I don't remember any property qualifications..

...for the franchise, or for holding office, in this country for quite a while now.

[FarCenter]

6. There is an effective property qualification, since to be a candidate requires wealth

If you don't have wealth of your own, you have to line up wealthy backers. The process for getting on the ticket as a candidate of the party that will probably win a seat is a wealth-based process.

[PETRUS]

10. In addition...

The legal framework that provides the basis for our economic activities not only fails to prevent concentrations of ownership, it encourages it.

9 of 10 candidates to win office outspend their opponents during the campaign.

Wealth is disproportionally represented in government - both among elected and appointed officials.

Legislation is largely drafted within a network of foundations, think tanks, and lobbyists - who receive most of their funding and direction from the top 1% percent - and handed to our elected representatives, few of whom are able to take the time to read it.

Who governs? Who benefits? Not "the people" in any meaningful sense of the term. The US is a class dominated* system.


*there are countless studies but here is an easily digestible source you can access for free right now: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/class_domination.html

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. Legitimate = by law. Say what you mean.

[Scruffy1]

7. Thomas Paine was right.

I remember his him using the same arguments to destroy hereditary Monarchy.

[BOG PERSON]

12. actually, arguments never destroyed hereditary monarchy

[MadHound]

8. So are you looking to abolish all property?

Middle class homes, passing on the family farm to one's kids and grandkids, what?

[FarCenter]

9. No, I would not abolish private property, just limit it as described above

I'd actually put a fairly high threshold on the estate tax, say the first $10 million (adjusted for inflation) is tax free. But above that, I'd make it quite progresive.

It is a good thing that entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs can make $ billions. But there is no reason that Steve's kids should be entrusted by society to use $ billions wisely and productively.

If the Koch brothers hadn't inherited their wealth, would we be concerned about them?

[BOG PERSON]

13. wait a minute

you think money-power is ruining society but you think it's good that we have a society that engenders capitalists?