I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me!

[email protected]

In a perfect world, that would be ideal. But for at least 50 years, capital has been buying the legislators and we’re backsliding even further from positive change. Without the threat, there’s no reason for them to let things change for the better for the rest of us.

JackGreenEarth

Of course. However killing billionaires is still immoral if there are peaceful solutions to redistributing the wealth, and useless if the act of killing them doesn’t magically redistribute the wealth fairly (it doesn’t)

[email protected]

What’s your larger point? Why hedge with “killing billionairs is immoral” instead of just saying what you really mean.

JackGreenEarth

What do you think I really mean? Killing anyone, including billionaires, is unethical. Maybe it could be justified in a utilitarian sense if it was guaranteed to lead to wealth redistribution and there was no other way, but even that isn’t the case.

[email protected]

Do you understand why people use of the phrase “eat the rich” or their threats to bring out guillotines? Do you understand the historic relevance and the iconography. To me, if you did, there would be no reason to make the misguided statement, “that’s immoral.” Other than to create subterfuge.

[email protected]

This whole populism trend is concerning to me. I agree that some folks are more responsible than others for the problems we face today. Even so, singling out and blaming a small group of people for the problems we face, then punishing them with legislation, is not the most productive way forward. We need real, serious solutions. “Get rid of X” rarely, if ever, works.

[email protected]

“rarely”: so you admit sometimes the solution is “get rid of X” ? Then why would “get rid of billionaires” not be a solution for you ? To be clear I’m not saying we should kill them or physically hurt them in any way, we can simply reappropriate their wealth turning them into non-billionaire, also making it illegal for anyone to be a billionaire in the future. Why would that not work in your opinion ?

[email protected]

if there are peaceful solutions to redistributing the wealth

But that’s the whole point, there aren’t any.

The whole idea of being able to tax them fairly and properly is merely a pacifier so the people think they have a chance. And while they hope something might change, the rich actually use their power, money and influence to rig the system in a way that ensure they’ll never have to pay their fair share.

There’s no peaceful solution to the unethical and violent accumulation of wealth

[email protected]

It’s hard to tell. Satire is usually funny. #justaprankbro

[email protected]

No, fuck X. Get rid of it.

[email protected]

What if we don’t kill them, but just rob them instead?

The moderate lemming

[email protected]

What we need to think about is how this works practically. A billionaire isn’t someone with a billion dollars in their bank account: it’s someone with a 50% share in a business with a market cap of $2bn. How do we address that fairly?

Now I’d say that a business with a certain level of profitability owes something to its employees, such that very few businesses would reach that level of capitalisation.

[email protected]

Why does the proletariat, the largest class, not simply eat the bougouise?

[email protected]

Nah man. I know cool.

[email protected]

I don’t see the issue, if we say 1 billion is too much (I would choose a lower maximum personally) if their wealth in any way or form is above the max, they have to sell a house or some asset, society in the form of the government (or whathever is in place) take the money to be used for public interest project. It’s really not that punishing, they would literally be the richest people, and they would still have plenty of money/asset to enjoy life. They don’t need more.

[email protected]

have you thought that maybe this joke wasn’t for you?

#dontquityourdayjob