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

[email protected]

Who will do this? Trump? Kamala? Superman?

This is not the way…

[email protected]

I’m for giving them a choice. The guillotine or we take away their money and make them work a minimum pay position in one of their factories for the rest of their lives. I’m pretty sure they would take the guillotine after a week.

[email protected]

Maybe if it actually would make the world better, you >could have a utilitarian argument

I have no doubt it would make the world better if you kill them and distribute their money (in minecraft) to I don’t know social housing, public hospitals and schools (not claiming they will be used with %100 efficiency or %100 ethically but will be orders of magnitudes better than what billionaires are doing with them in maybe all cases). If it turns out to be a billionaire whose businesses we are currently addicted to (not gonna name names but you know), then there will be a period of inconvenience but we will get over it and adapt.

JackGreenEarth

Obviously redistributing their wealth would be good. Killing them doesn’t automatically give you their wealth to redistribute, and redistributing without killing them is also a possibility you seem to be ignoring.

NOVA DRAGON

almost tempted to make an alt account and then post a thread in the politics community titled something like, “planning to k*ll B!ll g@tes; any help would be appreciated” (i would work on the title to make it believable, of course). but you know what would happen; i would get banned. because this whole “k!ll the rich” thing is performative, i.e. misguided virtue signalling. and it’s all very very immature.

[email protected]

they will just come up with another new deal to temporarily calm us down.

then work on better propaganda to keep us submissive in the meantime.

[email protected]

Don’t tease me like this.

[email protected]

yes fair point. I am also ok to give them the following choices:

1- live in a poor country with minimum wage with no opportunity to change jobs and a wealth cap (your annual earnings from other sources should be comparable to annual earnings of a minimal wage job). I have the feeling that after a couple months they will commit suicide. for billionaires directly affiliated with arms companies, this should be a country which was recently a war zone.

2- trial by combat. no wait that is game of thrones got confused.

This extra punishment’s purpose should be to act as a deterrant

[email protected]

Seems like the people in the comments are rather fond of the idea

[email protected]

Very idealistic to think that the redistribution of all that money wouldn’t just cause mass inflation! Also, mot of the money is tied up in companies. They don’t just have the money lying around. There would be no one to buy all these assets. I get the sentiment, that they make money from the work of their employees. At some point companies become to big to fail but when someone is starting a business the personal risks and investment someone takes to grow a company also should be respected.

We don’t produce nearly enough for everyone to be get fully all the things they rely on while barely anyone works. Thats not how the economy would end up working. We need a social safety net, so no complete free market which is toxic but as much as I dislike some billionaires your proposal is just not realistic and fantizises violence without accomplishing anything

Melllvar

But also note that 99% of the victims of the guillotine during the French revolution were innocent commoners, most of the nobility escaped abroad long before the reign of terror started, and the final victim of the terror was the guy who had been in charge of it.

[email protected]

Not every billionaire built their life doing something unethical. Killing them wouldn’t make you any better. People also fuel monopolies out of convenience even if they have a choice to act ethical. We should strive for legislative change. The billionaire might be the owner of parts of a company, but we as a society use the services for our daily lives. What economic system that actually works also supports free ideas, innovation and the willingness to perform other than something based on capitalism (Communism never worked and doesn’t reward it properly). Treating symptoms won’t treat the cause. We need legislative change.

[email protected]

Actually doing this would not only be immoral but just treat the symptoms of the downfalls of capitalism, not the cause. We need legislative change that has a proper social safety net, not violence LARPing.

[email protected]

Now this guy worry about what’s immoral. How about hoarding wealth off the backs of labor, is that immoral?

[email protected]

Billionaires use violence all the time to get what they want. Just because they hide behind layers of abstraction that they’ve set up, doesn’t mean they aren’t using violence.

[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.