We just need to stop wealth and money hording, by both individuals and companies.
We also have to do more to break the myth that many of these wealthy people earned their wealth, when if any truly did it was a very exception and very small minority.
We also have to do more to break the myth that many of these wealthy people earned their wealth, when if any truly did it was a very exception and very small minority.
To do that, you "just" have to implement a genuine and functional democracy.
But to do that, you'd first have to realize that the one you have is not that. This part is not possible.
The answer is tighter regulation and laws, and less kowtowing to corporations and 'evil' countries.
I am beginning to think it is not possible, to put it mildly.
The way I see it, if you have an uneducated, irrational population, or being a significant portion of a population, they need to be managed. They shouldn't be having a say in everything, they are not qualified to have a say in most things. They are basically children. They're basically children.
So to get there, you need to basically eradicate that population by mandating education, and certain types of education. Those same people are going to resist, but really that's the only way, and you need to do that even if there is a cost.
On the other hand: how does one determine who is rational? Once again, you're back to opinion/consensus.
I don't think that has to be the case. There are a lot of objective standards you could apply and tests you can do.
For example, as a somewhat bad example, ask people if they trust vaccines or not, and if not why not.
Epistemology and non-binary logic are not just complex, they're counterintuitive.
However in this case, your excellent "and if not why not qualifier" could possibly save the day...but then it comes down to whether the judge doesn't get it wrong.
Not wanting to get the vaccine is not the disqualifier, but the reasons justifying that decision could be.
Truth and agreement at the abstract level where we're working right now is easy, but the move to the object level is anything but (even though it seems easy).
People of good repute with the necessary qualifications to understand scientific findings.
Really, that's it. We're mostly just trying to stop the cuckoo fox news/alex jones crowd from voting and for good reason.
Roughly 2,500 years ago two giants of ethical philosophy appeared on the scene in the form of Socrates (who can be learned about best through Plato's dialogues and Xenophon's underappreciated Socratic works) and Siddartha Guatama (I would recommend Thich Nhat Hanh's Old Path White Clouds as a reasonably unified source of his life and thought).
I know bringing those guys up probably seems sentimental, but I have lived experience with poverty, and political "realism" is only beneficial to those who have not as yet suffered the consequences of harmful patterns of behavior.
I think Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol illustrates a pretty good path for the exceedingly wealthy to become heroes, but there's this problem of sentiment, isn't there? And yet sentiment is constantly appealed to in all forms of commercial advertising!
People don't even know why or how they are here. Siddartha and Socrates' responses were basically that the answers are difficult to articulate or fathom, but the real pressing issue is how best to live life, and their answers were basically to moderate and do no harm or wrong, at least as much as possible, because the real goods are non-material, and to do wrong actually harms the perpetrator more than the victim.