You're right, but we've never devised any system that prevents this from happening. Every single organization leads to a concentration of wealth and power. And even those ideally conceived to have counterbalancing forces, eventually are corrupted and subverted. It seems to be the steady state of reality.

▲

TFYS 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This will be the reality until we come up with a way to make good decisions using direct democracy, and make that decision-making process so fast and easy that it can be used for any kind of group decision.

Concentration of power stems from our inability to make good decisions as a group of equals. We have to choose someone to make decisions for the group because there is currently no other working way to make them. Current technology might enable us to find some form of true democracy, but I'm not sure if anyone is looking for it.

	▲	hodgesrm 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There does not seem to be an easy answer for which political system delivers the best benefits. Direct democracy has defects that have been apparent for thousands of years. I believe Plato was one of the first to argue that democracy turned into mob rule.[0] It seems unlikely that this was entirely original. Similar ideas must have been current in Athens well before his time, since they had abundant experience with demagogues and other problems during the Peloponnesian War. I don't think Plato's solution (Philosopher Kings) was correct, but it's harder to argue against his framing. It therefore seems like a question of which approach is less bad up front and whether it decays into something worse. Personally I would satisfied with a functioning republic in the US, which is where I live. What we have now is an oligarchy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_political_philosophy
	▲	quantummagic 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's just a naive utopian fantasy. The 51% voters are just another self-interested power center that will favor themselves and extract resources from the 49%. Not to mention that the system can be corrupted at every point. For instance, you still need police and military to enforce the results of group decisions; and at any moment they can seize power and take control, unless they're placated with preferential treatment by the system - reinventing systemic hierarchy. There is no system that is immune to human corruption. And all the high-minded belief in the human spirit, and the good-will of democracy, falls flat with even a cursory examination of previous attempts.

▲

tsunamifury 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

All of reality clumps no? Any grouping tends to attract more grouping, because the force that created the group increases as its groups more. Be it wealth, power, or sheer mass.

This feels like a rule of the universe, from plants and solar systems to wealth portfolios.

Only catastrophic events break it up.

▲

ozgrakkurt 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe wealth should be reset every time? There shouldn't be inheritence at all?

	▲	quantummagic 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's a lovely idea, but that system will have to be enforced by a power structure... which will always tend to grant itself special privileges. And even before such corruption, without inherited wealth, there will still be entrenched institutions that control resources, and have a continuity of leadership, that will always be looking out for themselves and their in-group. It's just natural.
	▲	pixl97 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Define wealth in an exact manner. Because rich people have both the power and motivation to define it in a manner in which they still win. Wealth can be education. Wealth can be contacts. Wealth can be properties. Wealth can be businesses. Wealth can be in other countries.