> this sort of subtle corruption is endemic and impossible to completely end in any human society
You're correct that democracy will always be captured by money. In a very real sense, our political system isn't democracy. It is capitalism.
The only way to prevent this is to stop trying to enforce so many rules with centralized democracies and move to a decentralized enforcement mechanism instead. Individuals act in their own perceived interests, so if individuals enforced our rules instead, you'd have to pay everyone to look the other way, which is a perfectly acceptable outcome.
So what is a decentralized enforcement mechanism? Trade. When people spend money, they're trading access to everyone's work. You and I give that money its value, and as individuals, we can take that value away from people who break the rules. We can stop accepting money that was traded by people who broke our rules.
You and I have the power to restore democracy by punishing the people who use their wealth to manipulate our democracy.
> In a very real sense, our political system isn't democracy. It is capitalism.
I believe that is a mischaracterisation by omission. When you have business interests of the few [effectively] dictating fiscal policy, the system is either crony capitalism or flat out plutocracy.
> You and I have the power to restore democracy by punishing the people who use their wealth to manipulate our democracy.
The best approach I can think of is propaganda warfare[~] via art and satire. Keep pushing and highlighting the idea that laws are up for auction. Turn it into subversive art and comedy; eventually the idea will catch on with larger population by mere osmosis. Only then can the topic become politically flammatory enough to drive a change.
[~]: Propaganda, advertising campaign or lobbying - I make no distinction between them, they are all aiming to sell ideas and change what (or how) people think. So when using a term in context, might as well be honest about it.
Changing the rules is only a temporary fix. Capitalism is an evolutionary force that selects for the most profitable business practices. Anyone who finds a way to buy influence under the new rules will outcompete those who don't. New rules to keep money out of politics are like new antibiotics: they're temporarily effective until evolution finds a way.
Centralized democracy is fundamentally vulnerable to capture by capital. There is no way around it but decentralization.
I have come to the same conclusion: decentralization is the key factor against corruption and lobbyism. That's also why I sympathize with separatist movements in Scotland, Catalunia, Northern Italy, etc.
Decentralization although can have a hard time competing against more efficient centralized entities. A large amount of semi-cooperating smaller entities will not necessarily lead to less corruption, because small town corruption is a very real issue that doesn't get much sunlight.
One example is the internet. Why do large centralized entities seem to 'winner takes all' in many markets in software for example?
Another example is the bay area. Because the area is so balkanized, there is no unified transit system for the entire metro area and caltrain, bart, ac transit and muni all work badly together, with bart not being built as it was supposed to because 1 or 2 counties decided not to play ball.
If money is used in ways you find harmful, don't accept that money. People trade access to your work to wield power, and you can withdraw consent for them to do so by rejecting that money. If people think money is being used for bad, they can stop it. Free people control the influence of money on their world.
Free people control the influence of money on their world.
Those free people will last all of about five minutes against an organized armed force raised up by someone who doesn't care about idealism but does come in at the beginning of your system with plenty of resources.
Sitting around the campfire singing songs about the dignity of trading labor for money is incompatible with reality.
Resources are an illusion that requires your consent to maintain. That armed force is getting paid with money that people have to agree to accept for it to be worth anything. Alternatively, that armed force could enslave the people at gunpoint, but that's pretty hard to sustain in the vast majority of the world.
This might sound crazy, but we just haven't had the technology to implement this sort of system until recently. It requires a decentralized ledger of all payments, which is a pretty new thing. Now that we have it, you can decide to only accept money that has been traded by people who follow your rules. If the people choose to do so, they can make it impossible to be subjugated by money.
My email's in my profile. Open to talking about this any time. I know it sounds crazy, but I truly believe that this new capability we have can be used to liberate people.
If you could wipe out all of human history up till now and start over fresh with a completely clean slate, then maybe. The problem is that there's already an unbalanced system in which there are people who control vast resources and are able to use that control to bribe or coerce others into doing what they prefer, which causes your scheme to be dead on arrival.
The people overthrew kings, and they were up against the same imbalance of power. I think it's going to be even easier this time. Potential loyalists will be able to see those who would bribe them lose buying power as the people declare that they won't accept any money they've touched. The playing field is actually lopsided in the people's favor. They just need to be told and given the tools to use their power.
Wealth is a social construct, and we now have the technology to modify that social construct without anyone's permission. If we wield it carefully, we might be able to build a better society with this power.
You're correct that democracy will always be captured by money. In a very real sense, our political system isn't democracy. It is capitalism.
The only way to prevent this is to stop trying to enforce so many rules with centralized democracies and move to a decentralized enforcement mechanism instead. Individuals act in their own perceived interests, so if individuals enforced our rules instead, you'd have to pay everyone to look the other way, which is a perfectly acceptable outcome.
So what is a decentralized enforcement mechanism? Trade. When people spend money, they're trading access to everyone's work. You and I give that money its value, and as individuals, we can take that value away from people who break the rules. We can stop accepting money that was traded by people who broke our rules.
You and I have the power to restore democracy by punishing the people who use their wealth to manipulate our democracy.