I don't disagree that there should be some kind of thing to limit concentration of power, and thus the potential for abuse of that power.

This is a never-ending issue man will always face till extinction.


But I am not sure what is the most pragmatic and long-lasting measure.

There is no magic bullet.  The best we can do is to radically change the rules of the game once the rich and powerful find a way to corrupt the current political/economic system at the time.


Super taxation of the super rich will have the net effect of limiting wealth accumulation. But it seems a very complicated issue. When something seems overly complicated, I always wonder whether or not a better solution is to be found elsewhere.

Indeed, proper education of the electorate will have a deterrent effect against tyranny. But the powerful corrupt are aware of this and thus always seek to control education and the media as one of the first steps toward regime change.

Exactly, that is why I always say to stay vigilant on the machinations of rich and powerful, since the following of their own self-interest will always be not in the interests of the people.
 

What I'm saying is, there are other areas to consider, and probably more important ones, than only focusing on wealth accumulation. (E.g. If a person's wealth will be taxed anyway at a certain level, he or she can just donate extras to some educational institution with the condition that he or she gets to influence the curriculum and even hiring, which is what has been done in America anyway for ages).

Three progressive ways society can do to ensure that their representative government stays one-step ahead of the rich and powerful is to codify in the prevailing laws of their nation to forbid the rich and powerful from holding any office in government, enact government financed election campaigns, and allow only lobbying by individuals, not corporations/organizations.  These three acts would work to seal off the body politic from the influence of big money.


Kuleana

I am not so sure about that last point.

You do want smart and talented people to take office. If you limit officeholders only to people who are not that talented (cuz they didn't get super rich) then you might even end up with real idiots (not like today when you only have PRETEND idiots, who just act stupid but are actually smart and cunning in their devious ways).

You actually want very smart good people who can outsmart the smart bad people. I doubt most smart people deliberately try to earn less money. If anything they want to maximize it. Now, what they do with that money, is another matter. They can set up real charities (not like the Clinton Foundation), hire people and create jobs, etc.

(Assuming a level playing field of course, not like an economy stacked against honest hard working people, with money only flowing to the old boys club, which is what we got right now)

So that's why I think just looking at the wealth thing is not sufficient.

Anyway I think ultimately whatever government "thing" that is created as a rule/law, can be circumvented by cunning and corrupt individuals who act in conspiracy.

They can even reinterpret words the way they want. They can change the meaning of the word "wealth" to mean something else!

I read that actually all of this is bullshit because everything is interpreted by the Judicial, and if they are corrupted, they can say something is Constitutional or not.


This is why not only should we be progressive and limit the access of government positions to the wealthy, but also ensure the uneducated and ill-informed are not able to enter government positions to become stooges for the same wealthy.  Including an income and education requirement would naturally be some criteria that needs to be acquired in order to hold a government position. 

For example, to be a US President, in addition to what is already listed in the US Constitution, we stipulate that the candidate must not be making more than one standard deviation above or below the median income in the US and they must have a Masters Degree in a relevant subject area.



So, end of the day, still it is the responsibility of the citizens to be the actual oversight.


That is another reason why we have the 2nd Amendment; to be able to have the means of pressing the reset button for corrupt/tyrannical governments.



And again, it is back to education of the masses. If they don't even know this is their duty, they are not going to do sh*t about it.

Exactly the situation we are in today with most Americans.

(As an example, citizens can boycott mainstream media that is not telling the truth, and advertisers will not pay money to those media outlets. People can boycott companies run by corrupt people, etc.)


This is why the US can never have a true democracy.  Everyone needs to be a critically thinking person or have the skills of one for it to work.


Kuleana

allow only lobbying by individuals, not corporations/organizations. 

Seems to me, and I freely admit to being in the dark on the details, that the blessed law that liberals passed and was tossed out by the SC did not prohibit major news outlets from the restrictions that were aimed at the NRA, etc.

Until the MSM is muzzled, forget any popular support for restrictions.  The MSM are certainly corporations, but somehow were overlooked?  Their influence is not as significant at the NRA, how?