6 ms·
I'd word that last idea differently. All democracies are vulnerable to corruption to a degree determined by factors like information quality and personal relati
by johnecheck 1y ago
I'd word that last idea differently. All democracies are vulnerable to corruption to a degree determined by factors like information quality and personal relationships/accountability. Small groups with great relationships and communication often work well democratically.
While larger democracies generally have fallen to increasing concentrations of wealth and power, I don't think we should conclude this is inevitable. We can do a lot better than this.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y agoI think concluding that concentrations of wealth and power is inevitable is exactly what the evidence suggests. Has there ever been a society where this did not eventually happen?
- johnecheck 1y agoHistorically, we've seen countless examples of societies becoming more and more unequal. Essentially all of them, true. But note a key piece: those societies weren't always getting more unequal. You can find many examples of societies pulling back from the brink after a period of consolidation. Perhaps the goal isn't for wealth inequality to never increase. What if instead of perpetual increase or a sharp decrease, society achieved a sin-wave like equilibrium centered around some desirable level of wealth/power inequality? It doesn't work if the level you desire is zero. Sorry, Marxists.