Small symptom of a larger concern. "Wealth" and "ownership" are not simply material. More importantly, they represent control over institutions and the liveli

Small symptom of a larger concern. "Wealth" and "ownership" are not simply material. More importantly, they represent control over institutions and the livelihood and welfare of those institutions employees, members, and managed resources. Past a point, if that control shifts welfare too far from some sort of common good, should -- and can -- the "ownership" shift to counter-act this? Or, to put it in old terms, in their way not entirely outdated -- certainly not in sentiment, regardless of those specific words: Noblesse oblige. Some of our current elites -- like always -- think this should be "trickle down" and that they should retain absolute control. That they are inherently superior, and that their position proves this and justifies whatever they decide and do. Well, no. It is much more dynamic than that. Just, most people these days would prefer that dynamism exert itself effectively without e.g. war and wholesale exploitation. My perspective is, more people doing better makes for a happier, more enjoyable, more interesting world. But I find myself butting up against a lot of not just me-first, but also zero sum gain -- belief and behavior. When people are using their control to make a bunch of other people unnecessarily miserable, take it away from them. Perhaps our greatest achievement is the means of doing so without guns and death. Maybe. Sometimes.