Global Inequality and Democracy

2/3 of Americans are in the top 1% of world wide income earners. In order to change the economic structure it would require Americans to rather than extract wealth from the rest of the world, lower their standard of living. Of course the rich and powerful will not suffer since they will have the ability to move or to safeguard their wealth. It will be the common American whose standard of living will collapse. As soon as a "third party" decides to end the "injustice" of the current regimes, the exploitative system that supports American standards of living will collapse. Think mass unemployment and homelessness/hunger. As soon as possible the old guard will be re-elected and Make America Great Again all over again. We saw this when Biden tried to get the USA off of its oil-addicted economy with the Green New Deal. So "the people" are going to have to be convinced that the homelessness and lack of food/resources which would follow abandoning the exploitative economic order, even if it is just temporary, would have to be worth it. People vote with their stomach and as soon as there is scarcity from this "justice" the American people will vote in someone to restore the order and fill their stomach. So who is "the people"? The world's people? Or just Americans? Only Americans have the right to vote in our elections, so you would have to convincea majority of them that the suffering they would endure from the collapse of American World Order would be worth the "justice". No one is going to vote for their own starvation. If we really had a just world there would be no exploitative empires, but that is just not reality. We live in a "fallen" world. It is not like we can just start over and make it "just". What will eventually occur is what happens to all empires, they eventually overextend and due to unforeseen circumstances collapse. At which point you might end up with a more equal society, but more likely than not, that is just a pipe dream, since people are never happy with what they have and always want more. They compete. This is why I don't like competition and have opted out of the political system, which if everyone did then perhaps we would not have tyrants who amass wealth and centralize control. But that is just not the case. The base human nature is not very pleasant "nasty brutish and short". So what do we do? What we can do realistically. Which is show kindness and compassion when we can. Knowing that we live in an imperfect world we do what we can despite the state of the world. We can still forgive one another and try to live in harmony, despite not changing the nature of the world. We can try, which is better than not. But let's just be realistic, Democracy is not how you convince an empire to willingly relinquish its exploitative business model. You would have to convince people to destroy their society, to destroy their own well being. And why? To help people who they will never meet. To help people who hate them. To help people suffering invisibly. Democracy is not how you do that because all it takes is one person to say, elect me and we will be rich again, and then you start this MAGA thing all over again. People forget, they forget history, because they are limited by the linear nature of human cognition. So what do we do? Do we change our hearts and accept our own suffering for the sake of "justice" or do we "drill baby drill" and continue our path towards domination? Because if we give in, we would have to convince the rest of the world to do so as well. Or else China or Russia or some unknown empire will fill the vacuum. An old Navy Admiral once told me, if it is not US in power, it will be someone else, which is why we must maintain the order, since the USA is exceptional, a "city on a hill", and Russia, China or the Caliphate would not be as charitable. So what do we do? Do we just give up? I don't know if there is an answer. All I can do is focus on trying to find peace in my own life, and hopefully spread that to others. I am not very good at that though. I don't think anyone is. And thus we find ourselves in the same predicament, over and over again throughout all of human history.

You’re circling a real tension that political theory has struggled with for centuries: the gap between **moral ideals (justice, equality)** and **material incentives (security, comfort, survival)**. That tension doesn’t go away just because we see it clearly. A few things in your framing are worth tightening—not to dismiss your argument, but to sharpen it. --- ### 1. The “2/3 of Americans are top 1% globally” idea It’s directionally true that many Americans are wealthy *relative to the global median*, but the conclusion that this depends purely on “extraction” is too simplified. Global inequality comes from a mix of: - historical advantages (industrialization timing, institutions) - geography and resources - trade systems (some exploitative, some mutually beneficial) - internal inequality within countries (huge factor) So yes, Americans benefit from the global system—but it’s not a single switch that, if turned off, instantly collapses living standards into mass starvation. It would be disruptive, but not necessarily apocalyptic. --- ### 2. Democracy vs sacrifice You’re right about one core truth: **Democracies are bad at choosing immediate pain for abstract long-term moral gains.** That’s not a flaw unique to Americans—that’s human. But history shows people *will* accept sacrifice when: - the threat feels immediate (wars, depressions) - the benefit feels shared and visible - the burden feels fairly distributed Think of: - entity["historical_event","World War II","global conflict 1939-1945"] mobilization - entity["historical_event","The Great Depression","global economic crisis 1930s"] reforms - Civil rights-era sacrifices So the real constraint isn’t “people won’t sacrifice”—it’s: > People won’t sacrifice for something distant, invisible, and unevenly distributed. --- ### 3. The “collapse if we stop exploiting” assumption This is the biggest place I’d push back. You’re treating the system as binary: - either exploit → stability - or stop → collapse Reality is more gradient: - supply chains can shift rather than disappear - wages can rise globally without zeroing out U.S. living standards - technology often offsets cost increases - policy can redistribute internally There *would* be tradeoffs (higher prices, slower growth), but not necessarily civilizational collapse. --- ### 4. “If not us, then China/Russia” That logic has been used by every empire, including: - entity["historical_empire","British Empire","global empire 18th-20th century"] - entity["historical_empire","Roman Empire","ancient Mediterranean empire"] It’s not entirely wrong—power vacuums do get filled. But it also tends to justify maintaining systems indefinitely. The deeper question is: > Can a system be reformed without losing stability? That’s the narrow path most societies try (and often fail) to walk. --- ### 5. Your most important insight (don’t lose this) This part is actually the most grounded: > “People vote with their stomach.” Yes. That’s foundational. And this leads to a more realistic conclusion than “we’re stuck”: **Large-scale moral change only happens when it aligns with self-interest.** Examples: - Clean energy becomes viable when it’s *cheaper*, not just “better” - Labor rights expand when instability threatens elites - Welfare systems grow when inequality risks collapse So the lever isn’t: > “convince people to suffer for justice” It’s: > “make justice materially viable or beneficial” --- ### 6. Opting out vs engaging You said you’ve opted out of the political system. I get the instinct—but here’s the uncomfortable truth: - If thoughtful people disengage, - decision-making concentrates among the least reflective, most reactive actors That doesn’t reduce tyranny—it tends to accelerate it. --- ### 7. The “fallen world” conclusion You’re echoing something very close to entity["people","Thomas Hobbes","English philosopher"]: > life is “nasty, brutish, and short” But there’s another tradition—closer to: - entity["people","Adam Smith","Scottish economist philosopher"] (moral sentiments) - entity["people","John Rawls","American political philosopher"] (fairness under uncertainty) Which says: > humans are self-interested, but also capable of cooperation and moral expansion under the right conditions. History actually shows both are true. --- ### So what do we *realistically* do? Not utopia. Not collapse. Something narrower: **1. Reduce harm at the margins** - fairer trade practices - better labor standards - targeted aid **2. Align incentives with ethics** - make “doing good” economically viable - push for systems where ethical choices aren’t self-destructive **3. Stay engaged, but locally grounded** - national politics is abstract - local/community impact is real and cumulative **4. Personal layer (what you ended on)** You’re not wrong here: - kindness - forgiveness - small-scale harmony That’s not trivial—it’s the only layer individuals fully control. --- ### Final thought You’re looking for a clean answer, but the system you’re describing doesn’t have one. It’s not: - total justice - or total exploitation It’s an unstable equilibrium that shifts over time. Empires don’t just collapse—they also **transform**, often gradually, through pressure from within and without. So the realistic stance isn’t: > “fix everything” or “give up” It’s closer to: > **push where you can, understand the limits, and don’t let the scale of the problem erase the value of smaller actions** If you want, we can go deeper into one part of your argument—like whether global inequality really depends on exploitation, or how a transition could happen without collapse.