Joseph, your guest essay on Persuasion substack really struck me. It is the best alternative tax proposition I have heard and it addresses the critical new problem of billionaires trying to buy up everything people need: Farmland, residential land, medicine, energy, water and, next stop: air!
But you made this reference to "the poison of populism". Nobody ever explains the problem with populism. What could "populism" mean except "democracy"? There is also a suggestion of the danger of elites in populism, which I personally think is totally reasonable. Ultimately isn't populism simply democracy that doesn't have the result that the user of the word "populism" would prefer?
Well, democracy and populism are two rather different things- in fact, healthy democracies tend not to be populist. Populism is the belief that politics is a war between the virtuous people and corrupt elites, and that the game has been rigged. Now, sometimes this is true! However, because populists believe that all elites are corrupt and the political game has been rigged against the people, they tend to be destructive of institutions- including democratic ones (see Jan. 6th and the subsequent distrust of election results by populists on the right, or Stacey Abrams' campaign for governor of Georgia with populists on the left). Additionally, populism tends to make people susceptible to demagoguery and authoritarianism, since its motivating force is anger and a desire to pull down entrenched elites by whatever means possible.
In short, we want a government that is popular, but not populist- populism is a sign that the system is not working, and the people are noticing.
It seems to me that the mass aquisition of residential properties and farmland in the USA and water rights in other countries does indicate a dangerous elite that must be stopped. What are the real possibilities of democracy in a society where 1% own 66% of everything and there is little to limit them from using their wealth to buy politicians and regulatory agencies? This is already happening.
I think the Georgism is a great solution, but I also think it is clearly against elite interests and they'd never let it happen. But I will keep reading.
P.S. If the elites are corrupt, does it really matter what the people are? A corrupt elite will lead to a corrupt people, most likely, but the corruption of the elite is of much more consequence.
Joseph, your guest essay on Persuasion substack really struck me. It is the best alternative tax proposition I have heard and it addresses the critical new problem of billionaires trying to buy up everything people need: Farmland, residential land, medicine, energy, water and, next stop: air!
But you made this reference to "the poison of populism". Nobody ever explains the problem with populism. What could "populism" mean except "democracy"? There is also a suggestion of the danger of elites in populism, which I personally think is totally reasonable. Ultimately isn't populism simply democracy that doesn't have the result that the user of the word "populism" would prefer?
Why do you refer to it as a poison?
Well, democracy and populism are two rather different things- in fact, healthy democracies tend not to be populist. Populism is the belief that politics is a war between the virtuous people and corrupt elites, and that the game has been rigged. Now, sometimes this is true! However, because populists believe that all elites are corrupt and the political game has been rigged against the people, they tend to be destructive of institutions- including democratic ones (see Jan. 6th and the subsequent distrust of election results by populists on the right, or Stacey Abrams' campaign for governor of Georgia with populists on the left). Additionally, populism tends to make people susceptible to demagoguery and authoritarianism, since its motivating force is anger and a desire to pull down entrenched elites by whatever means possible.
In short, we want a government that is popular, but not populist- populism is a sign that the system is not working, and the people are noticing.
It seems to me that the mass aquisition of residential properties and farmland in the USA and water rights in other countries does indicate a dangerous elite that must be stopped. What are the real possibilities of democracy in a society where 1% own 66% of everything and there is little to limit them from using their wealth to buy politicians and regulatory agencies? This is already happening.
I think the Georgism is a great solution, but I also think it is clearly against elite interests and they'd never let it happen. But I will keep reading.
P.S. If the elites are corrupt, does it really matter what the people are? A corrupt elite will lead to a corrupt people, most likely, but the corruption of the elite is of much more consequence.
Wow, had no idea San Jose of all places was so behind.