Wealth has been concentrating as well. If the rich continually get richer, it makes sense that at some point their capabilities become comparable to nation states.
See both: Beating the Midas Curse and The Millionaire Next Door
With barely any oversight, non-existent checks and balances, no social responsibility, an the power to sway the laws that the rest of us must live by, I urge you all to consider where we're headed. To me, at least, it seems that the age of kings is once again upon us.
What could possibly go wrong?
We know what's going wrong - we're living it. The Federal Government has never been so dismissive of the law than it has been since well before 9/11.
Consider that we've gone to war six times [1] since 1945, never have declared war the way God [2] and the Framers said to in the Constitution.
[1] Maybe five. I'm counting really big efforts, involving at least a division of grunts. Libya made the cut because it irks me that there wasn't even a pretense of asking Congressional permission.
[2] Irony.
I'm sure there's a lot of corruption going on at this level but it's just as much "owning the country" as it is "being extorted by the officials". Even in the first world (at least according to professor Lessig):
> “Our current tax system with all its complexities is in part designed to make it easier for candidates, in particular congressmen, to raise money to get back to congress,” Lessig said. “All sorts of special exceptions which expire after a limited period of time are just a reason to pick up the phone and call somebody and say ‘Your exception is about to expire, here’s a good reason for you to help us fight to get it to extend.’ And that gives them the opportunity to practice what is really a type of extortion – shaking the trees of money in the private sector into their campaign coffers so that they can run for congress again.”
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/01/02/lawrence-lessig-on-money-...
Private parties are subject to the law. They can be sued. They can be made to repair damage.
Governments ? They have no responsibilities whatsoever. Once their term is done, everything's forgotten and forgiven. Where is their social responsibility? Ever seen a president appear in court an unlawful attack on another country ?
No ? That's what I thought.
I have seen some presidents in courts of Justice. Bill Clinton, Jacques Chirac, also in different categories, Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. I would say that this is roughly as common as seeing a wealthy CEO charged for crimes that his company made.
Basically, when you give power to an entity, you must keep in mind what it will cost to remove it when it abuses its power. Corporations or public authorities are not that different in this respect : if a fairly elected body cannot keep them in check, or step in in case of abuses, don't give them power, even if they look "nice".
That is a simple principle to avoid violent conflicts. If NASA says it wants to start inject cesium in huge quantity in the atmosphere, vote them out in the next term (yes, voting can work, even in America). If Exxon wants to do the same, make sure that a justice+police environment exists that can forbid them and coercively force them to not do that.
> hen you give power to an entity, you must keep in mind what it will cost to remove it
Agree with you, but why is it that in so many countries, elected officials are beyond the law in so many ways ? In France, for example, elected officials benefit of immunities and they cannot be sued during their mandate. How is that fair ?
> voting can work, even in America
Even in America ? A country when you only have a choice between 2 parties does not really qualify as "it's working" to me. It's like choosing between plague and cholera: you basically wonder every time which one is less harmful than the other.
We don't need more policies to protect the environment. If you gave actual ownership rights on the environment, people who own them would defend their ownership and sue polluters for damages and reparation. It's a well known problem called as "tragedy of the commons". When nobody owns anything, everyone will keep destroying the resource until it's gone. That's what's happening with Tuna fishing in the Mediterranean Sea currently. Ownership is the only answer to ensure there will be balance and retribution for unlawful acts.
EDIT: I'm sorry, but was my request for a source considered rude? I don't understand the knock. I would really like to see some data showing the consolidation of wealth, if it actually exists.
But I'd also love to see a source, the claim alone does not convince me.
I'm actually not even sure what the claim is, actually -- are we talking about the top 5%? The top 1%? And are we talking about distribution within the entire world or within some specific nations?
I believe at least when you get to talking about the single richest person compared to their nation of residence, the richest person for the past few decades has controlled a smaller percentage of the wealth than in the early to mid 1900s or late 1800s -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_f... -- but beyond that I have no idea how the distribution has changed either worldwide within nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#US_income_Gini...
The Gini coefficient is the standard measure of income inequality.
Sure, wealth and income are not the same, but they must be pretty correlated. I have read that the Gini is higher for wealth that income, but I haven't seen data for American wealth Gini coefficients over time. If you have that data, then you could be constructive and provide it.