Much of the nation's, indeed, the world's, attention is now focused on the problem on the problem of wealth inequality, and the negative effects thereof.
Many pundits are offering a huge variety of schemes to alleviate it, from government austerity programs to new taxes to raising the minimum wage.
What is never, ever, discussed is whether or not a human right exists to unlimited wealth (and the power that accompanies it) accumulation, and what acknowledging such a right would mean for other human rights.
Capitalist mythology notwithstanding, wealth distribution is ALWAYS a zero-sum game: for some to have more, others must have less. If you doubt this, then please explain why we have budget battles. Realized wealth is always finite, and it doesn't rally matter how much more you create as long as some insist on growing already huge fortunes.
Individual rights end where they impact others negatively. Your right to accumulate wealth ends if the manner in which you do so harms others, or puts excessive costs on them.
At the root of the inequality problem is the unstated notion that there exists a human right to unlimited wealth accumulation.
Let me be perfectly clear about this:
If you accept this as true, then what you are really saying is that it is the only human right that really exists, for in accepting it, you deny the existence of all other human rights.
No other human rights can coexist with this false one.
Freedom of speech?
Not when wealth can buy the media outlets and determine what is allowed to be said, and back it up by buying the courts to provide cover.
Self-government?
Not when wealth (Koch brothers) can buy political parties and the machinery to keep them under control.
A right to a hunger-free, securely decent life?
Not when wealth is the measure by which we allow individuals to control all working conditions.
Unrestricted wealth accumulation is very dangerous for societies: history is replete with fabulously wealthy people and families who were ruthless oppressors who eventually drove their societies into revolution and mass deaths.
There isn't a single thing wrong with acknowledging that this practice is archaic, and only leads to a fight among the very top few for complete control of humanity. They can't help it: their lust for wealth and power makes it inevitable.
Indeed, a case can be made that those at the very top of the economic pyramid have a strong degree of mental illness that manifests in hoarding behavior, accumulating things that give them little permanent pleasure, dissatisfied with life even though they have access to all that is possible to be on offer, constantly demanding more, more, MORE even though they have so much they literally have no idea what to do with it or even how much they have, utterly thoughtless, uncompassionate and and uncaring about the damage they wreak upon the planet and humanity in their mad quest to be the richest and most powerful on the planet.
Sure there are a few who don't fit the profile, but the few are the exception that hides the ugliness of the rest.
And you know what?
Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates personally created their wealth or the products it was based upon. They relentlessly drove others to create for them, and took both the credit and the wealth for it. They MANAGED others, but they rarely contributed genuine, concrete code or engineering designs. Gates swindled MS-DOS out of the inventor, then used family connections to gain a monopoly position from which he destroyed his competition through use of pressure and false release dates. Look it up.
Jobs was better, but not by much.
And Facebook wealth? Generated by using misplaced trust and stealing the personal data of its users and selling it.
We need as a species to realize that unlimited wealth accumulation always results in more negatives than positives, and place a reasonable upper limit on it.
Who can argue that a wealth cap of a billion or five is unreasonable, or that it would somehow stifle the economy, or cause fewer innovations?
If you want to make a case for those, fine: prove it with facts rather than emotions.
Against any fact you muster, I will set the whole of human history, and the repeated pattern of social collapse brought about by over-reaching greed.
To end most of the world's conflicts and misery, the answer is very, very simple.
Cap wealth accumulation.
Too much wealth inequality creates economic, social, and political instability. For capitalism to thrive in a stable manner, it needs both upper and lower limits in wealth distribution: a maximum amount of individual wealth at one end and a minimum at the other.
At the low end is a living wage so that everyone with a job is a net taxpayer, and doesn't need government support to meet healthy living needs: food, shelter, healthcare, education, etc.
At the high end, a maximum amount of wealth an individual may accumulate.
A solid economic house needs a roof as well as a floor.
All discussion of minimum wages is moot unless and until there is a discussion about whether or not there exists a human right to unlimited wealth (actually, unlimited POWER accumulation) accumulation.
There is only one possible answer to that question: a resounding NO!
For if you allow that there is a basic human right to such unlimited accumulation, you are saying that no other human rights exist, for that one trumps all others, as any right that interferes with wealth accumulation will be negated. A right to unlimited wealth accumulation cannot coexist with any other human rights.
Until we recognize that there are substantial societal dangers in allowing unlimited wealth accumulation, dangers that outweigh by far any benefits derived therefrom, and place a cap (substantial, but a hard cap nevertheless) on wealth accumulation, we will never alleviate any of the economic problems and dangers the world faces. These dangers have a new component: life extension technology.
In the past wealth accumulation was limited by shorter lifespans and longer transit/communication times. Today those limits are gone or disappearing fast. What happens when life extension technology allows some few, due to the expense, to live half again as long as everyone else?
Do you really want to live in a world where the Kochs, Cruz, and Walker live to be 150 years old? And you die in your 60s or 70s?
Capping wealth accumulation = solve many economic and political problems.
At the very least we need to rationally discuss the issue without resort to capitalist dogma.
Thu Apr 02, 2015 at 4:41 PM PT: This video on sustainability by Nature magazine pretty clearly gives credence to my thesis:
https://www.youtube.com/...