Oligarchy: The fight for democracy and the environment are the same

[icehorse]

For a while now I've been thinking that our most urgent problem is defanging the Oligarchy. Oligarchs are fighting hard to resist our efforts to combat climate change, to end poverty, to improve health care, to strengthen the middle class, to reduce violence, to make progress providing equal opportunity, and so on.

This article makes a fine case in support of the idea that Oligarchy is our most urgent problem:

The Earth is in a death spiral. It will take radical action to save us | George Monbiot

 

[BSM1]

For a while now I've been thinking that our most urgent problem is defanging the Oligarchy. Oligarchs are fighting hard to resist our efforts to combat climate change, to end poverty, to improve health care, to strengthen the middle class, to reduce violence, to make progress providing equal opportunity, and so on.

This article makes a fine case in support of the idea that Oligarchy is our most urgent problem:

The Earth is in a death spiral. It will take radical action to save us | George Monbiot

How do you combat climate change?

 

[YmirGF]

How do you combat climate change?

Kill a rich person, apparently.

(Unbuckles his concealed carry... just in case...)

 

[Sunstone]

I agree with the OP. I think the US -- and some other countries -- are currently either very close to oligarchy or are oligarchies. In the US especially, the oligarchy is thwarting the will of the people. If we are going to have representative government, we cannot have an oligarchy.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." -- Supreme Court Justice Brandeis.

 

[Lyndon]

How do you combat climate change?

Stop people like you from having any control of the government!!

 

[YmirGF]

I agree with the OP. I think the US -- and some other countries -- are currently either very close to oligarchy or are oligarchies. In the US especially, the oligarchy is thwarting the will of the people. If we are going to have representative government, we cannot have an oligarchy.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." -- Supreme Court Justice Brandeis.

How on earth do you propose to rectify the alleged imbalance though? Does the government simply break up companies that get to a certain size? Do we penalize Apple for being incredibly successful? Do we cap wages? Do we tell folks they have no right to earn $50,000,000.00 in a single year? Should highly paid individuals be forced to donate their time and money or face a massive tax?

 

[BSM1]

Kill a rich person, apparently.

You might be closer to the truth than you realize. I went back and read the article. To me it sounds like a thinly veiled anarchist/Marxist manifesto. There's really no conclusive examples of the cataclysmic climate change available; and there are no real solutions set forth, except kill the rich, of course. Maybe there's no real solutions because there is no real threat.

 

[Sunstone]

How on earth do you propose to rectify the alleged imbalance though? Does the government simply break up companies that get to a certain size? Do we penalize Apple for being incredibly successful? Do we cap wages? Do we tell folks they have no right to earn $50,000,000.00 in a single year?

I think the immediate problem, Paul, is to get the oligarch's money out of politics. That's what I would urge people to focus on. There is no sanity in allowing a small minority of people to dump millions of dollars in dark money into elections favoring candidates they have in their pockets.

 

[BSM1]

Stop people like you from having any control of the government!!

Did you vote last week?

 

[YmirGF]

You might be closer to the truth than you realize. I went back and read the article. To me it sounds like a thinly veiled anarchist/Marxist manifesto. There's really no conclusive examples of the cataclysmic climate change available; and there are no real solutions set forth, except kill the rich, of course. Maybe there's no real solutions because there is no real threat.

I found the article to be incendiary piffle, myself.

 

[BSM1]

I think the immediate problem, Paul, is to get the oligarch's money out of politics. That's what I would urge people to focus on. There is no sanity in allowing a small minority of people to dump millions of dollars in dark money into elections favoring candidates they have in their pockets.

Where do you draw the line? One dollar? One hundred dollars? Where?

 

[YmirGF]

I think the immediate problem, Paul, is to get the oligarch's money out of politics. That's what I would urge people to focus on. There is no sanity in allowing a small minority of people to dump millions of dollars in dark money into elections favoring candidates they have in their pockets.

You have my complete agreement in that area.

 

[BSM1]

I found the article to be incendiary piffle, myself.

Piffle. Yeah, that's the word...piffle.

 

[icehorse]

How on earth do you propose to rectify the alleged imbalance though? Does the government simply break up companies that get to a certain size? Do we penalize Apple for being incredibly successful? Do we cap wages? Do we tell folks they have no right to earn $50,000,000.00 in a single year?

We could start by eliminating all the tax loopholes and tax structures that allow rich individuals and profitable companies to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Then we can implement changes to lobbying laws and campaign contributions. We can demand that all contributions to politicians be made transparent. (I like the idea that a politician's suit ought to be covered with sponsor decals, like NASCAR drivers )

We can promote politicians whose central promise is to vote consistent with their constituent's wishes.

 

[Sunstone]

Where do you draw the line? One dollar? One hundred dollars? Where?

What's wrong with public finance of elections?

 

[icehorse]

How do you combat climate change?

- You don't re-elect "leaders" who deny it.
- You shift subsidies away from fossil fuel companies and towards renewable R&D.
- You provide incentives to environmentally sustainable initiatives.
- You stop subsidizing unsustainable industries like cattle ranchers. (E.g., if we didn't subsidize cattlemen, beef would cost $20-$30 / pound, which is what it "costs" our environment to produce.)
- You provide education to women throughout the world, and they will choose to have fewer babies.
- You stop subsidizing the military industrial complex to fund initiatives like the ones I've listed above.

And so on..

 

[YmirGF]

What's wrong with public finance of elections?

An idea, but not so loosey goosey that Uncle Waldo can get funding for the Flat-Earthers for Jesus party.

- You don't re-elect "leaders" who deny it.
- You shift subsidies away from fossil fuel companies and towards renewable R&D.
- You provide incentives to environmentally sustainable initiatives.
- You stop subsidizing unsustainable industries like cattle ranchers. (E.g., if we didn't subsidize cattlemen, beef would cost $20-$30 / pound, which is what it "costs" our environment to produce.)
- You provide education to women throughout the world, and they will choose to have fewer babies.
- You stop subsidizing the military industrial complex to fund initiatives like the ones I've listed above.

And so on..

All relatively good ideas... but... how to implement them with an apathetic voting public?

Amassing the political capital to pull this off is the problem. I'm not even sure how you would even get something like this off the ground.

 

[BSM1]

- You don't re-elect "leaders" who deny it.
- You shift subsidies away from fossil fuel companies and towards renewable R&D.
- You provide incentives to environmentally sustainable initiatives.
- You stop subsidizing unsustainable industries like cattle ranchers. (E.g., if we didn't subsidize cattlemen, beef would cost $20-$30 / pound, which is what it "costs" our environment to produce.)
- You provide education to women throughout the world, and they will choose to have fewer babies.
- You stop subsidizing the military industrial complex to fund initiatives like the ones I've listed above.

And so on..

What do you do to those countries that refuse to cooperate in your fantasy? BTW, the US is probably one of the highest environmentally regulated countries in the world.

 

[PureX]

How on earth do you propose to rectify the alleged imbalance though? Does the government simply break up companies that get to a certain size? Do we penalize Apple for being incredibly successful? Do we cap wages? Do we tell folks they have no right to earn $50,000,000.00 in a single year? Should highly paid individuals be forced to donate their time and money or face a massive tax?

All of the above.

Mostly, we stop making all our laws and policy decisions based on maximizing profits to capital investors, and we start making them based on the quality of life of all the citizens of the nation (and ultimately of the world). The only way this can happen is to stop the corrupting influence of greed (in the form of massive wealth) on the power of social institutions like government, the media, and the marketplace. And the only way to stop that is to stop the accumulation of great wealth in the hands of a few people. Wealth and responsibility have to be spread around, so that everyone gets a piece, and everyone gets a say. Anyone who's ever played the monopoly game knows that the game is over when the "winner" gets all the cash and property.

 

[BSM1]

What's wrong with public finance of elections?

Seriously? Now you want the government telling you how much of your money goes to which candidate?