Sadly revolutions have a really bad track record for the 99%. It may feel good in the short term but the people who end up assuming power are usually much worse.
OTOH fractional reserve banking and cronyism are really past their expiration dates. It'd be nice to stop kicking the can down the road - we have technological solutions now.
Similarly if you redistribute wealth - what's going to prevent it from becoming unequally distributed again? I'd imagine that a small subset of people would quickly game whatever system is devised and we're back at square one again.
Instead, a random representative sample of 1000 people is chosen from the population, for some congress, for a year. They rule during that time. Some rules cannot be overruled, like the 1 year limit, no way to game that. Additionally, all communication of the chosen ones must be recorded and public, without exceptions.
This basically eliminates corruption or the rise of a „ruling class“, and lobbyism has a much harder task.
I would also argue that this will result in much better overall decisions - they might lack some initial knowledge but that is more than offset by missing corruption and cronyism
A randomly assigned legislature sounds like a recipe to create an unaccountable bureaucracy of staffers and advisors 'guiding' the forced citizen through what must be done / can't be done legislatively. This is where the real power would lie - and frankly we are kind of there today. Most congresscritters spend 45% of their time campaigning, 45% of their time fundraising and 10% of their time looking damn cute. Staffers, lobbyists and think-tanks do most of the legislative work.
Sounds like the UK civil service in Yes, Minister / Yes, Prime Minister.
The people doing the drafting, suggesting, and explaining won't have term limits and will have the real power. They'll also be the ones targeted by lobbyists.
You'll end up with is a floor show with the real decisions being made behind the scenes by people who are mostly not directly accountable.
Not unlike what we have now. Different, possibly better in some ways, and possibly worse in others.
My sample is anecdotal at best, but the single instance in which I ended up in a position to witness a judgement and its rationale, the result was... laughably wrong. It was quickly overruled in appeal by the judges who actually know the law.
So... I'm not optimistic. Perhaps some AI could help, I guess? But that comes with lots of risks, too.
The redistribution shouldn't be a one-time event, but rather a persistently different approach to taxation, labor rights (unions!), welfare, etc.
We can see this working in a number of countries, especially the Nordics.
Of course, there will always be attacks on such a system, but such is life. Some battles need to be refought every two generations or so, that's just how humans work.
Norway doesn’t count because of its sovereign wealth fund.
How is it working in Sweden though? That country still has billionaires (IKEA founder, Minecraft’s notch).
I think it just doesn’t work in general. If you try to set up a new system to redistribute the wealth, the winners will be those in charge of the system.
You need incentives to work hard and it is a good idea to have strong differences in outcome, as long as you have mostly equal opportunity.
Otherwise you end up where all socialist experiments end up: in economical, social and humanitarian hell.
I mean hell, the whole BLM shindig petered out the nanosecond that it looked like the people with BLM signs in their yard might not get tackled by the first cop that see em'.
Now imagine how something with serious dollar signs attached would go(!!).
I mean hell, the whole BLM shindig petered out the nanosecond that it looked like the people with BLM signs in their yard might get to see someone walk down the street with an open container and not get tackled by the first cop that see em'.