They can live, but it has to be on 60k a year, with all of their initial assets liquidated and used to support people in need.
yeah i’m fine with that but not murder like a lot of people here say they want
I think most of us start with the assumption that they’ll never give up their stranglehold willingly, and move on to more practical solutions.
practical
Ah, teenagers
what other pressure do you have the ability to put on a billionaire that they wouldn’t find utterly laughable, if they even noticed it? but you can’t buy your way out of death. sure, if the threat to their lives were to become credible, they could leverage their wealth to protect against it, but being surrounded by bodyguards at all times, having every rooftop surveyed for snipers before you go out to get coffee - these are things that disrupt their overly-cruisy existences. and the more people there are gunning for them, figuratively or literally, the worse their lives get.
and sure, if you off them, their wealth will just default to someone else. but if billionaires start dying left and right, their inheritants might just start to find ways to make sure their fortune stays a little shy of that magical 9-digit mark.
This is the teenager equivalent of telling Santa you want a pony
I kind of envy the mindset where one has empathy for someone who is so out of touch with reality given their status. I like to think I’m a good, just person that wants to do the right thing but when I think of what the billionaire’s perspective is: someone with so much power and influence that most people are just objects or playthings to them, it’s frustrating to think about. They think they’re bigger than people, the earth, maybe even the universe.
I’m not saying I could be the triggerman, I’m not that kind of person, but yeah, fuck 'em.
Exactly. These people are downright evil. They at least accept that their actions kill thousands of people. Why would I has sympathy with a psychopathic murderer?
I don’t think you should, but should we derive what is just from how much sympathy capital a given person has? Assuming your objective is to end poverty, etc, and to minimize suffering, then if you are ready to advocate for something like murder even in the hypothetical that you absolutely don’t need to, then you’re probably just letting your feeling dictate your actions. You can of course dispute that hypothetical, and there is definitely an argument to be made there, but a lot of people don’t and still go all in on it. Hence the problem with “wanting” these people to die, as opposed to “doing what is necessary”.
Let’s entertain that thought for a minute.
What you’re describing (in unnecessarily complex phrasing) is, that calling for the actual death of billionaires is an emotional response.
If you read my comment above, my argument is not, that per being rich billionaires are bad and thus deserve death. My argument is, that the fact that these people own so much directly causes deaths several orders of magnitude above what a complete eradication of all billionaires would cause. That’s math, not emotion.
Now, killing them and redistributing their wealth is without question violence, but not doing it causes much more violence.
What your fundamental error is, is that you’re equating doing nothing with doing neutral. In your setup, watching a Nazi kill 100 Jews is neutral, but killing the Nazi is bad, because murder is bad. I’m exaggerating slightly here, but I think you get the point.
This kind of thinking is unfortunately very common, and it’s almost perfect for people who are so aloof, that it’s even beneath them to interact with the real world and they claim is rational - which is it not.
So circling back to the initial question: killing billionaires is a net positive. It’s without bad sides, it’s certainly neither the way I would prefer things to go down and it’s not the ideal way neither. But it’s not the worst option either, certainly better than the status quo.
I want them to give up their wealth and power for the benefit of society. But they aren’t going to do that, are they?
A rare few do. They’re off limits.
They sure aren’t. They give up their wealth, but by doing so gain more power. They get to decide what is important for the world by dumping millions of dollars in their favourite charities. Charities that they conveniently get to put their names on to feel good about themselves.
So they’re not allowed to have the money…and they’re also not allowed to donate it? Am I clear? Because that seems stupid, tbh.
The world worked a little better when philanthropy was encouraged for the tax break. It always will. They get their cute little name on a plaque, whatever. The money goes where it’s needed.
This is not to say anyone needs to be able to make that much in the first place, but demonizing one for also getting rid of it is funny
