Do you think you can do this, effectively and consistently?
If yes, then does it matter anymore if some people get a lot of economic power? I mean, keeping someone with $1B from bribing politicians is probably harder than someone with $50M, but is that difference enough to make the difference between success and failure at containing them? (Actually, the question might be more like: Is it easier to prevent one person with $1B, or twenty people with $50M each, from corrupting the political system? It seems like it depends on your enforcement mechanism. If it relies mostly on watching their activities, then watching one billionaire might well be easier.)
The potential for some people to abuse power via wealth might be quantified as “how wealthy they are” x “how easy it is to turn wealth into political power”.
If you want to minimize that, then you could try to police some people getting a lot of wealth, or to police “turning wealth into political power”, or both.
Policing the former seems so much worse than policing the latter on many fronts. You seem to agree on that point. In fact, you seem to agree with me, e.g. here:
Without strong anti-corruption, the straightforward way to maintain power in the hands of the people is to ban excess individual wealth beyond a threshold.
I personally think banning excess wealth is a bad idea, and that it should not be considered before we punish and deter actual corruption.
Yet you introduce the essay by—well, at least by suggesting you’ll explain “why people may oppose rich people getting richer on principle” and “how wealth concentration is an especially pernicious form of concentration of power”, and end with your intentions to critique libertarianism. That makes it sound like you’re not satisfied by the plan of “Block everyone from converting wealth into political power, and then let individuals become as rich as the free market permits”.
Do you think you can do this, effectively and consistently?
If yes, then does it matter anymore if some people get a lot of economic power? I mean, keeping someone with $1B from bribing politicians is probably harder than someone with $50M, but is that difference enough to make the difference between success and failure at containing them? (Actually, the question might be more like: Is it easier to prevent one person with $1B, or twenty people with $50M each, from corrupting the political system? It seems like it depends on your enforcement mechanism. If it relies mostly on watching their activities, then watching one billionaire might well be easier.)
The potential for some people to abuse power via wealth might be quantified as “how wealthy they are” x “how easy it is to turn wealth into political power”.
If you want to minimize that, then you could try to police some people getting a lot of wealth, or to police “turning wealth into political power”, or both.
Policing the former seems so much worse than policing the latter on many fronts. You seem to agree on that point. In fact, you seem to agree with me, e.g. here:
Yet you introduce the essay by—well, at least by suggesting you’ll explain “why people may oppose rich people getting richer on principle” and “how wealth concentration is an especially pernicious form of concentration of power”, and end with your intentions to critique libertarianism. That makes it sound like you’re not satisfied by the plan of “Block everyone from converting wealth into political power, and then let individuals become as rich as the free market permits”.