Do People Have a Right to Own Vast Wealth?

[Sunstone]

Do people have a right to own vast wealth? That is, to own and control disproportionately huge portions of the world's economic resources?

Currently, the world's richest 1% own half the world's wealth, and just eight men own as much as the poorest half of the world's total population -- 3.6 billion people.

It is simply a fact that most -- perhaps even almost all -- very wealthy people use some portion of their wealth to influence politics and/or government policy in order to benefit themselves and sometimes others. When they do so, they can be orders of magnitude more powerful and influential that the average citizens of their society.

In 2014, the Princeton and Northwestern report came out. After shifting through 1,800 policy decisions made by the US government, the researches found that the probablility of a particular policy being adopted barely changes whether a tiny minority or a large majority of average citizens favors it. In other words, average citizens have little or no say in whether "their" government adopts any particular policy that might effect them.

However, the same study discovered that policies with low support from the rich were adopted only 18% of the time while policies with high support from the rich were adopt 45% of the time, showing that the rich have much more influence over which government policies get adopted than do average citizens -- even large majorities of average citizens.

In short, the US is not a democracy, but an oligarchy.

Which raises the question: Should there by any limits to the amount of wealth one person can own and control in this world, especially given that ownership of large amounts of wealth translates into disproportionate political power?

Why or why not?

If no, then what form of government do you prefer and would an oligarchy or dictatorship be acceptable to you?

 

[LuisDantas]

Should there by any limits to the amount of wealth one person can own and control in this world, especially given that ownership of large amounts of wealth translates into disproportionate political power?

Why or why not?

If no, then what form of government do you prefer and would an oligarchy or dictatorship be acceptable to you?

Yes, there should definitely be limits, although I don't think those can be enforced without the participation of a fairly enlightened general population. The current levels of disparity are very harmful to the social fabric.

 

[YmirGF]

Which raises the question: Should there by any limits to the amount of wealth one person can own and control in this world, especially given that ownership of large amounts of wealth translates into disproportionate political power?

I'd be rather fascinated at how the ideas for establishing such a thing could possibly be enacted on a global scale. It is currently not possible, and hopefully, will remain impossible for a very long time to come. One is essentially punishing success. The key here is that anyone who would consider such measures is probably the last person or group of persons you would want ordering the world economy.

If no, then what form of government do you prefer and would an oligarchy or dictatorship be acceptable to you?

Representation Democracy is still arguably the best mode as it at least it pretends to give the little people a voice. Even if somehow the so-called oligarchy was systematically removed, it would simply be replaced by a new power elite which would impose its own agenda.

 

[Sunstone]

The key here is that anyone who would consider such measures is probably the last person or group of persons you would want ordering the world economy.

But perhaps you'd want them to be the first looking out for the liberties and freedoms of the average person.

 

[Sunstone]

The current levels of disparity are very harmful to the social fabric.

Great disparities in wealth have historically always been harmful to the social contract, too.

 

[sun rise]

Do people have a right to own vast wealth? That is, to own and control disproportionately huge portions of the world's economic resources?...]the same study discovered that policies with low support from the rich were adopted only 18% of the time while policies with high support from the rich were adopt 45% of the time

They currently have the political right. But you are asking about the moral right and should economic might make right. My answer is no. When a tiny minority by their policies denies the majority the unalienable right to the "pursuit of happiness" by the way they use their economic power, then they're violating what I feel is a fundamental, inalienable, human right.

 

[YmirGF]

But perhaps you'd want them to be the first looking out for the liberties and freedoms of the average person.

That didn't go so well when it was tried in the past. Jus' sayin...

 

[WalterTrull]

That's kinda like saying "Should there be a limit on how fast people can run?". Some people are born with natural ability. Some work for it. Some inherit it. Some use their use of power for good. Some don't. I am very much not rich, but also very much wouldn't like to be told I couldn't be. So, I suppose, short of criminality, no.
Then, of course, there's: "For ye have the poor always with you..."

 

[Quintessence]

I'd be rather fascinated at how the ideas for establishing such a thing could possibly be enacted on a global scale. It is currently not possible, and hopefully, will remain impossible for a very long time to come. One is essentially punishing success.

Could you elaborate on how a cap on wealth would punish success? What do you mean by success? Do you believe our system is fair and equitable when it comes to rewarding people for what they do?

(I sure don't - many jobs have little to nothing in the way of provisions to reward people for success and only punish employees for failures)

 

[Sunstone]

They currently have the political right. But you are asking about the moral right and should economic might make right. My answer is no. When a tiny minority by their policies denies the majority the unalienable right to the "pursuit of happiness" by the way they use their economic power, then they're violating what I feel is a fundamental, inalienable, human right.

What if a tiny minority of people, by exercising their overwhelming political power, effectively denies the majority of people their right to self-governance? Is that something they have a right to do?

 

[Nakosis]

I don't believe in "rights". You have a "right" to do something where no one can prevent you from doing it.

You want to make it a criminal act to prevent people from making more wealth than you feel they should have. I suspect whatever system you put in place, smart folks are going to figure a legal or illegal way around it.

Especially rich folks, because there always going to be someone around willing to cater to the rich in the hopes of being able to share in that wealth. So if one country limits your wealth, there are plenty of other countries that will welcome your wealth making abilities.

These people creating wealth bring the local economy up. maybe not in a equitable sense you'd like but they bring, because of their own spending a lot of wealth/jobs into the local area.

I've heard of a number of companies closing up shop in Calif because of a desire to redistribute wealth and move to Texas because of a more business friendly environment.

There is the possibility of attempt to limit wealth could be bad for the local economy. There is a limit to how much the rich will accept on their wealth building. It's a pretty big limits for some like Gates and Buffet, but I doubt there is enough of these uber rich folks to go around and I suspect a number of those won't accept any limitations.

 

[Sunstone]

That's kinda like saying "Should there be a limit on how fast people can run?".

I don't see how you have reached that conclusion. The key issue here is whether people of great wealth should have the means (i.e. the wealth) to control the rest of us. It's more like asking, "Should there be a limit on one competitor in a race shooting off the kneecaps of other competitors."

 

[Sunstone]

You want to make it a criminal act...

You're the only one speaking of criminalizing wealth. You'll need to do better than introduce a straw man to persuade me that confiscating wealth over some amount in order to preserve the freedoms and liberties of most people is the wrong thing to do.

These people creating wealth bring the local economy up.

While it's often true that a person with a few million dollars invests it in locally owned businesses, we're not talking about people with merely a few million here. We're talking about great wealth. Think billions. Billionaires, such as the Waltons, often own business that are net drains on the local economies they operate in.

Beyond that, the real issue here is whether or not it should be permissible for a few uber-rich people to have such power over others that the others are deprived in all but name of their right to self-governance.

 

[Nakosis]

Could you elaborate on how a cap on wealth would punish success? What do you mean by success? Do you believe our system is fair and equitable when it comes to rewarding people for what they do?

You punish them by limiting their reward.

(I sure don't - many jobs have little to nothing in the way of provisions to reward people for success and only punish employees for failures)

That IMO is really a problem with the mindset of the employee. One is never going to achieve wealth as an employee. Your options are limited to the whims of the employer. Thats never going to change if you rely on the wealth of others. Where you can create wealth for yourself you get to decide the rules. The mindset of an employee is not one of creating wealth, it's one of being compensated for your time.

The employee doesn't care if the company makes or loses money as long as you feel you are fairly compensated for your time. The employee generally doesn't get to share in any extra wealth created. Why should they care?

Yes there are co-ops were people can share in wealth creation but then you are no longer an employee but more of a partner. Folks accept, look for an employer, employee relationship. If there weren't plenty of folks willing to accept that relationship then it wouldn't exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't believe in "rights". You have a "right" to do something where no one can prevent you from doing it.

My take is somewhat similar yet different: we have so-called rights when other people agree to gift us with them. And we lose them when those people no longer want to grace us with those gifts.

Laws don't acknowledge that reality and often go out of their way to pretent that it is not so. But ultimately reality is what it is.

Wealth itself is very much an example of such a gifted "right".

 

[Woberts]

If no, then what form of government do you prefer and would an oligarchy or dictatorship be acceptable to you?

I would be ok with an oligarchy or dictatorship if I'm the one running it.

...........On a more serious note, as someone else on the fora said before (I think it was @Polymath257, but I'm not sure)I feel that a mix of regulated capatalism and socialism would be the ideal form of government.

 

[WalterTrull]

"Should there be a limit on one competitor in a race shooting off the kneecaps of other competitors."

Dude! If you get in the race with out kneecap protection, you haven't been watching the races.

 

[Sunstone]

The way I see it, my rights are not sacred. They end where your rights begin, and vice versa. I have a right to exercise my liberties and freedoms, but not in a way that unfairly deprives you of your liberties and freedoms. My right to wealth does not include a right to use it to destroy your right to self-governance. But that's exactly what history shows will almost inevitably happen whenever a minority of people gain vastly disproportionate wealth to the masses of people.

 

[Sunstone]

Dude! If you get in the race with out kneecap protection, you haven't been watching the races.

Let's stick to the issue here rather than get scared of tackling it head on. Do you have a right to own such wealth as allows you to deprive other people of their right to self-governance.

 

[Nakosis]

You're the only one speaking of criminalizing wealth. You'll need to do better than introduce a straw man to persuade me that confiscating wealth over some amount in order to preserve the freedoms and liberties of most people is the wrong thing to do.

How else would you handle it. If they choose to continue to create wealth, how do you plan to stop them?

While it's often true that a person with a few million dollars invests it in locally owned businesses, we're not talking about people with merely a few million here. We're talking about great wealth. Think billions. Billionaires, such as the Waltons, often own business that are net drains on the local economies they operate in.

How are they net drains on the economy? Honestly, not saying you're wrong. What comes off the top of my head is like what the Clintons did in Haiti. They made it possible for the uber-rich to steal the relief money the was supposed to aid the Haitians. A lot of that money went to private contractors which donated money to the Clinton Foundation. They repaired, built homes, did stuff all under the guise of humanitarian relief but the actual folks living there are still making pennies working in textile factories.

Stuff like this, sure let's figure out some way to prevent folks like this from being abused.

Beyond that, the real issue here is whether or not it should be permissible for a few uber-rich people to have such power over others that the others are deprived in all but name of their right to self-governance.

That's what people want. People do self govern and this is the situation they choose. They do so thinking it will benefit them, and it does to a certain extent but they had, been taught the employee mindset. They need the wealthy to create wealth so the money is available to compensate them for their labor.