The only long term way to permenantly prevent corporate money from corrupting a political system is to prevent that kind of individual wealth from existing in the first place and to transfer ownership of corporations to a larger group of people, such as the employees, which will then spread out the wealth of those corporations such that no individual will have the kind of money needed to buy politicians and judges/justices.
What will happen if corruption is simply regulated without preventing mass wealth accumilation is the regulations will just slowly be eroded over time again as greed will ultimately prevail since it is ultimately allowed to prevail. We’ve seen this happen throughout history, where powerful people will do anything possible to gain more power. Therefore, we need to eliminate that kind of power from existing in the first place, which in our current society is wealth.
We could also just kill the rich. It may not be the ideal solution but it is definitely a potential solution. I think we negotiate from a weaker position when we act like that isn’t an option. Taxation, wealth redistribution, and caps on political donations should be seen as the preferable option to public beheadings, which is how the masses used to settle these kinds of grievances when pushed far enough. I say we frame it that way instead of “please don’t do mean stuff anymore Mr. CEO”, which is what they hear when we talk about more civilized solutions.
The permenant fix is to have a society where no human has power over another. That idea is the basis for Anarchist idiology, which, contrary to the literal definition of the word, doesn’t always mean “no government/governance”. Just because modern history (outside of Native Americans and tribal societies) didn’t have an example to follow doesn’t mean we can’t try new things.
We are already past your ideal solution as death is already involved, the rich have been killing working class folks for a long ass time and I don’t believe we should forget that.
The only long term way to permenantly prevent corporate money from corrupting a political system is to prevent that kind of individual wealth from existing in the first place and to transfer ownership of corporations to a larger group of people, such as the employees, which will then spread out the wealth of those corporations such that no individual will have the kind of money needed to buy politicians and judges/justices.
What will happen if corruption is simply regulated without preventing mass wealth accumilation is the regulations will just slowly be eroded over time again as greed will ultimately prevail since it is ultimately allowed to prevail. We’ve seen this happen throughout history, where powerful people will do anything possible to gain more power. Therefore, we need to eliminate that kind of power from existing in the first place, which in our current society is wealth.
We could also just kill the rich. It may not be the ideal solution but it is definitely a potential solution. I think we negotiate from a weaker position when we act like that isn’t an option. Taxation, wealth redistribution, and caps on political donations should be seen as the preferable option to public beheadings, which is how the masses used to settle these kinds of grievances when pushed far enough. I say we frame it that way instead of “please don’t do mean stuff anymore Mr. CEO”, which is what they hear when we talk about more civilized solutions.
If we kill the rich, then new ones will rise out of their ashes. That is a temporary solution that wouldn’t actually fix the real rot in the system.
There is no permanent fix. Those with wealth and power inevitably seek more of it. All of history is an endless cycle of that kind of behavior.
The permenant fix is to have a society where no human has power over another. That idea is the basis for Anarchist idiology, which, contrary to the literal definition of the word, doesn’t always mean “no government/governance”. Just because modern history (outside of Native Americans and tribal societies) didn’t have an example to follow doesn’t mean we can’t try new things.
Wdym its not an ideal solution? I think its the best way to quickly fix most of our issues.
I think it’s fair to say that the ideal solution doesn’t involve death at all. It is a simple solution though.
We are already past your ideal solution as death is already involved, the rich have been killing working class folks for a long ass time and I don’t believe we should forget that.