Forum Post: How would the 99% be different to the 1%?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 30, 2011, 5:02 a.m. EST by skam
(2)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In the past humanity as a whole allowed a small fraction of its population to hoard all wealth and power. I really do mean all, what wealth you have is actually just a loan that can be taken back from you by force.
So if we were to actually democratize this world and return the wealth to the masses how would we stop history from repeating itself? We all know people who really really shouldn't have any say in other peoples lives because they are just far too stupid or cruel or religious or atheist or all of the above... somehow.
Why don't we (presuming we actually have the power which i doubt, i mean we live in a time where its cheaper to kill people then enslave them and robots can actually replace the majority of human laborers... but that's another depressing discussion), why don't we increase the ruling class from the current small fraction to a much larger one, say 20%, and within this class have a true democracy.
Perhaps slowly we can increase this number as we grow more sensible as a society but i think there will always be people who have no desire for decision making, who want to be told what to do.
Just brainstorming here people, open to other ideas, criticism and insults.
What does religion or atheism have to do with wealth and greed?
the obvious question is how to chose amongst all the applicants to reach 20%? it is my theory that as psychological profiling and intelligence testing techniques improve, we can use a mixture of these to identify the ruling class...
but i think if and when we arrive a point where using the above is feasible, it might be better to choose the most enlightened world leaders than to expand rule to top 20, i.e. shrink the ruling class down from present levels... that way you have less variables and as leaders become corrupt it is easier to take care of them...