More actions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An important problem in contemporary society is how much influence wealth has and, particularly, its corrupting influence on democracy. According to Daniel Chandler, in his recent book [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Free_and_Equal/Hl7QEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Free and Equal] |
An important problem in contemporary society is how much influence wealth has and, particularly, its corrupting influence on democracy. According to the Rawlsian political philosopher Daniel Chandler, in his recent book [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Free_and_Equal/Hl7QEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Free and Equal], almost all policy that gets enacted only does so because the wealthy are behind it. In other words, if a policy is backed by ordinary people but not the wealthy, it <i>is not</i> enacted. If it is backed by the wealthy and not ordinary people, it <i>is</i> enacted. A number of academic studies ([https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/jnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf 1], [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B 2], [https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-020614-094706 3], [https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo58174159.html 4], [https://www.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/includes/Working_Paper_5_2017.pdf 5]) support this conclusion: |
||
https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/jnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf |
https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/jnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf |
||
Revision as of 15:08, 29 August 2024
An important problem in contemporary society is how much influence wealth has and, particularly, its corrupting influence on democracy. According to the Rawlsian political philosopher Daniel Chandler, in his recent book Free and Equal, almost all policy that gets enacted only does so because the wealthy are behind it. In other words, if a policy is backed by ordinary people but not the wealthy, it is not enacted. If it is backed by the wealthy and not ordinary people, it is enacted. A number of academic studies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) support this conclusion:
https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/jnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-020614-094706
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo58174159.html
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/includes/Working_Paper_5_2017.pdf
These papers represent a damning indictment of how political equality of opportunity and outcomes is subverted in the US and most other European democracies. Needless to say, Rawls would not approve. One advantage of a designed social system is that communities will also be designing their economic system in tandem with their political system and thus can do so with the problem of political corruption top of mind.