It is better for rich people to have power than politicians. At least their wealth might have something to do with skill (creating a successful drug in the past, etc.)
Eh? Rich people don't get rich because of skill, ever. No one gets rich because of skill, they get rich because they are in a position to exploit power. You simply cannot earn a billion dollars through wages. No one is that valuable or unique. The only way to do it is by appropriating the output of others, or having it handed to you. For example, the wealthiest family in America, the Waltons, owns more money than 40% of the country. All of them inherited their billions. Even if we do believe that Sam Walton deserved untold billions, how does this tell us anything about his children?
In addition, why should we empower rich people at all? Why is giving a single person a billion dollars, skillful or not, better than allowing a million people to democratically direct that wealth? Even if those million people simply redistribute that money into their pockets, the outcomes will likely be better for everyone, and it's mathematically far more likely that those people will direct it towards the common good than a single person would.
> Eh? Rich people don't get rich because of skill, ever.
That's silly, of course some do. There are any number of inventors, entertainers, etc, who've gotten rich largely from their own efforts (and luck).
> The only way to do it is by appropriating the output of others, or having it handed to you.
There would be no output to appropriate without the skill and direction of the rich person who had the idea and took the risk. As for the inheritance angle, who better deserves the money than the children of the original rich guy? They're the ones most likely genetically to share the same traits that enabled the original guy to get rich.
> In addition, why should we empower rich people at all? Why is giving a single person a billion dollars, skillful or not, better than allowing a million people to democratically direct that wealth? Even if those million people simply redistribute that money into their pockets.
Because they've proven to be able to direct capital in a beneficial way. Regular people haven't. Regular people would just buy the same old trinkets and necessities and innovation would halt. It would be a very boring existence with no hope of a better life to strive for.
> There would be no output to appropriate without the skill and direction of the rich person who had the idea and took the risk.
I think that it is a bit much to suppose that every rich person is benefiting exclusively, or even mainly, from his or her own skills and ideas.
> As for the inheritance angle, who better deserves the money than the children of the original rich guy? They're the ones most likely genetically to share the same traits that enabled the original guy to get rich.
You'd think so, but as I wrote in another comment, 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, and 90% by the third. Rich kids do a crappy job of holding on to wealth (although I'm sure they're still better than poor kids would be).
I meant by "this road" the idea that there is some sort of genetically inherited fitness to rule, not anything about wealth in particular. (Also, I daresay that rich people elevated to hereditary power would find that their resources would allow them to hold onto their wealth.)
Politicians (in a liberal democracy) can have their power removed without revolution. In a different system of government in which the rich are in charge, the only way to change government is to destroy it and kill them all. They won't sit still while you're trying to do this.
> In a different system of government in which the rich are in charge, the only way to change government is to destroy it and kill them all.
70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, and a stunning 90% by the third, according to the Williams Group wealth consultancy [1]. So the power seems to naturally defuse without having to "kill them all".
