If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply broken.
The problem here isn't that wealth is power, it will always be power. The issue is that a single person has been allowed to accumulate too much.
There are lots of successful examples - constitutions, voting, term limits, separate judiciary, non-political commuters, etc
The big problem I see in the design of egalitarian systems, is explicitly addressing the need for continuous response to new forms of centralization. I don’t know of any significant systems that were designed with any explicit statement of prioritizing that (vs. just general support for fixes, amendments, etc.)
For instance, the centralization of US political power into only two parties, where (temporary) single party rule of three branches is actually a practical possibility should have triggered some major reforms before it spun out of control.
A simple requirement that no coordinated individual or organization have sway over more than 25% of political seats, and political organizations at the federal and state levels must be separated, would do wonders for decentralization and better representation.
But the constitution is silent on any guidance or requirement on addressing new power centralization problems.
It is the hard root problem of power, but not systemizing progress on it is to accept inevitable dystopia
The federal constitution says that voting is left up to the states, so arguably the centralization problem is ~50 different experiments which have all gone wrong in the exact same way.
You could say that the federal constitution should have put some guidance in place to stop exactly this correlated failure, but ironically that would introduce more centralization as there would be one rule forced on all the individual states.
Whether that's a good idea or not I think depends on how good the rule is in practice. Unfortunately the rule you suggest highlights just how difficult it is to write a good one. For example, how do you define "coordinated organization"?
If both major parties split into 50 different organizations that all happened to endorse the same candidate for president (but for nominally different state-specific reasons), should the SCOTUS have the power to ban those political organizations (and perhaps ban one and not the other)?
Fortunately we can look to other countries that have managed to avoid political duopoly by using voting systems which don't penalize people for voting for new parties. Even better, some US states have already implemented such a system[0], and, going back to your point about constitutions, the people of Maine managed to introduce RCV not because of a constitutional requirement, but despite a narrow (state) constitutional prohibition.[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
A fundamental problem, that we are all burdened to solve, is how do we get from an ideological government to a scientific one. Until we do that, we're all just plugging holes in a sinking ship.
and would be undemocratic
His wealth today comes largely because Tesla (under his leadership as CEO) has become a company that investors now believe is incredibly valuable, and they've driven up the stock price. At what point in this process did Musk "accumulate" this ownership of Tesla, and exactly what do you propose should have happened to stop him?
Tesla has been successful in many of its lines of business and succeeded when many thought they couldn’t, that is undebatable. The failure of our system is that its stock price is completely out of line with the reality that reflects that success.
What should have happened is wider distribution of profits among Tesla employees, who are the ones actually doing the work. It’s fine if the CEO is considered an extremely valuable employee and gets a larger share, within limits. Pretty sure he could live a great life with a few million dollars, which would both limit his undeserved power and benefit everyone doing the work.
Every unit of time (year or month) you have to declare what stocks you own and you get taxed based on how much they're worth.
Once a person has wealth over, say, $500 million, then there should be a 100% tax.
However it might be interesting to explore an option that required people who own a stake in a company that has grown beyond a certain size to be required to siphon off some of those shares to employees over time in a way where it was not conducted on the open market and would not affect share price.
I also question whether corporate entities should be allowed to own shares and what the benefits are of that. Should private investment firms be allowed to accumulate massive stakes in public companies?
Local governments are starved for money, and almost all of their funding comes from local property taxes, that is, normal people. So, these mega-rich are allowed to get unboundedly wealthy, while normal people have to pay to keep society running as a minimal level. The mega-rich's money, as well as corporations', needs to flow back through the system. It does no good to let it concentrate so heavily and ultimately do nothing while it sits there.
I agree with that, but they could just, you know, lower taxes on the lower and middle class to balance it out.
With that said, the parent commenter subscribes to what political philsophies and/or ethics? ...
If you tax them 100% they'll just stop working or bail to another country, and then you collect zero tax revenue from them. At 70% most of them will just suck it up and pay.
(I realize France is a counterpoint here, but I'd argue it was a half-assed attempt, and they have neighboring French-speaking tax havens that have no real U.S. equivalent.)
The reality is that nobody knows for sure what the curve of revenue vs. tax rate looks like other than at those two end points, which makes the entire concept completely useless.
Your inability to conceive of a useful purpose for such a quantity of money does not justify prohibiting its existence.
>I do not understand how the U.S. government does not view these billionaires as serious ideological threats to democracy, the court system, national security, etc
Cooperation. A government that can't handle the idea of powerful citizens has all the tools it needs to make almost all those people (hard to banish all the Christian missionaries, and martyring them is the surest way to grow more) leave or fall in line, but I don't think many people look at Venezuela or North Korea as ideal places to govern in terms of democracy, the court system, national security, etc.
What inability and where was it demonstrated? Are you referring to a useful purpose if it was taxed or a useful purpose for individuals to have such wealth? If the latter, then I propose that an individual containing such wealth is less useful than it being returned.
Those things and countries you mentioned have nothing to do with this discussion.
https://fortune.com/2022/03/02/vladimir-putin-net-worth-2022...
During communism dignitaries didn’t have much money-wealth, or even true material wealth. But they were powerful nevertheless.
if you look at this as a problem with the rich, you're not being creative enough.
Speaking as if we're assuming Musk gets away with this, this is a justice enforcement problem -- when all the mega-rich are gone the justice system that displays this level of corruption will just skim the highest payers available to them; they won't just give up these corrupt practices because there isn't a local billionaire to tap.
