If you give power to the bottom half of society, all you get is institutionalised envy and jealousy, where no one is allowed to have more, or better - in the end EVERYONE has very little - and what little they have is substandard.
As for an Aristocratic elite, if their personal power/governance extends only over a particular state/territory it would be entirely in their interest to ensure that their population flourished. In the rare cases where a tyranny emerges, assassination of the aristocrat seems to have been the usual solution (opening the position to their legitimate successor).
No I would say do away with institutions
Also if you give power to the people and allow them to decide things through consensus democracy then you balance out the negative aspects which are allowed to grab power under capitalism....its a safeguard against abuses of power
I'd say that what creates 'envy and jelousy' is the current system, capitalism, because it is all about materialism. Under capitalism people are encouraged/trained to judge their own worth and others worth by their material possessions and how much money they have. People are constantly looking around and comparing what they have with what others have...it is a breeding ground for 'envy and jelousy'....in fact consumerism works by creating insecurity and then throwing fuel on that fire...you know...cranking it up to get people to spend more money.
If people were satisfied with what they have they wouldn't spend money and the ridiculous capitalist economy built around consumption would grind to a halt so the capitalists have to find ways to get people to keep spending money even if this means getting them into lives of debt. In fact debt is essential for capitalism and despite the stress and misery it causes people for the lender it really is just 'money for old rope'. Debt also keeps the wage slaves on the treadmill....as they have to keep making their payments.....its all diabolically clever!
I think if you look at how most people are living now....and i don't just mean in your family or community, i mean in your country and beyond...you realise that many people are living with substandard conditions...many are living life in poverty. This is despite the wastefullness of capitalism. Imagine if the resources squandered in capitalism could be diverted to creating a better life for people.
Globalisation has failed to lift all boats in a rising tide of wealth...all it has done is increase the gap between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have nots. This is leading to increasing agitation (which is why we are seeing revolution everywhere) and the counter reaction of the ruling classes which is to buy more weaponry and exert greater violence and cruelty on their people.
I don't see why sharing the wealth would lead to substandard living....i think it would lead to a good quality of life for everyone, instead of a privaleged and ruthless few.
My country has had over 1000 years of aristocracy.. since before the Norman invasion. When the Normans invaded they killed off, demoted or married into the anglo-saxon aristocracy and built castles in every settlement as a way of physically and psychologically dominating the land. They ruled by the sword and taxed heavy (ever heard of 'robin hood'?). The class divide this created is still plagueing Britain today and has no doubt played a part in the Imperialism of the British empire as it spread violence and taxation around the world under the sense of superiority which such an elitist mindset will ALWAYS create
Even today the descendants of the Norman aristocracy still own most of the land in the UK. In Scotland 500 people own half of the land, in a country of 5 million people. Many are foreign investors but many are descended from Normans.
There is a Billy Connolly sketch where he jokes about a man walking across some land, when the Lord comes out and tells him to get off the land as it is his. The walker asks the Lord how he came to own the land and the Lord answers, indignantly, that it has been in his family for generations and that his anscestor won it after fighting someone else in a battle. The walker replies 'ok then i'll fight you for it!'
Land is also a good way, as is art, to keep your money safe throughout economic turmoil and fluctuations in currency. It also has tax advantages as the following passage explains (from:
http://www.caledonia.org.uk/land/wos.htm)
Although far from complete, the project came under the spotlight in October 2003 when the Sunday Herald newspaper exposed the perfectly legal means by which large landowners are able to dodge tax, under the anachronistic system of beneficial ownership. Much of the 3-page investigation was based on Andy Wightman's research, which has shown that it can be impossible to trace the true identities of the actual owners of huge chunks of Scotland who lurk behind nominee companies based in offshore tax havens.
Such companies can deal in British land and property without paying a penny in tax, while simultaneously receiving handouts of taxpayers' money in the form of development grants. This system is exploited by many large estates while a further 2.5 million acres (13.1 percent of Scotland) is held in private trusts which allows the owners to avoid capital gains and inheritance taxes and stamp duty.
According to the article, an estimated
