Hello. There is a paramilitary force murdering people with impunity. The president and its administration consider themselves above the law. They encourage political violence against their enemies. They use state power to punish dissent. Corporatism reigns. Minorities and intellectuals are scapegoated.
I'm going to say you're the one who doesn't understand the word "fascist".
There is a paramilitary force murdering people with impunity in the streets of America, commanded by a demented pedophile conman. What do you think is beyond those stakes?
In retrospect, it turns out that in the 90s we had a paramilitary force murdering people with impunity in the streets of America, commanded by a demented pedophile conman, and it went down quite smoothly.
People should not be allowed to accumulate capital beyond $X, yes. What natural law means they should? Society created the conditions for that person to be so successful; in fact, the person only had the minor part in that success. Once you reach $X, you get a certificate saying you won at life and society is really grateful, and society gets the rest of the rewards while they dedicate their life to philanthropy or torturing kittens or whatever it is they do as a hobby.
> People should not be allowed to accumulate capital beyond $X, yes.
The term "capital" is an abstraction that's not helpful here. The big "wealth" numbers are all about equity ownership in highly valued companies. Bezos owns 9% of Amazon stock. That's why he's "rich." What should happen to that stock? What happens to his voting control over Amazon?
> The term "capital" is an abstraction that's not helpful here
It was not so abstract when Musk came up with 44 billion to buy Twitter... The details are complicated but in the end it's still wealth.
> Bezos owns 9% of Amazon stock. That's why he's "rich." What should happen to that stock? What happens to his voting control over Amazon?
Presumably he would sell the stock to pay the wealth tax (or whatever mechanism is there to limit wealth)?
As for the voting control: when you're down to 9% this ship has sailed hasn't it? Anyway I don't think society has a moral obligation to allow individuals personal control of a trillion dollar company because they founded it (and if society disagrees with me, super-voting shares can be used as Alphabet does).
The problem is people that rich don't own anything. It's all shell corporations and LLCs and money borrowed against those shares (so no need to pay any taxes). But they clearly have access to yacht money. We're not going to write an airtight law in the comments section. We can just ignore paper wealth and ownership stakes for the purposes of wealth redistribution.
The question boils down to a feeling that when the revolution comes, that no one person needs more than, say, $100 million for themselves, or not. Trying to distract the conversation into defining "for themselves" will only prolong your time before the firing squad, comrad.
Generally, they're on the lines of "regulations hurt my capacity to make unlimited money at whomever's in my way's expense.", except with less candidness.
Because it's pleasant. I don't know why people drive if they don't absolutely have to when it's so dangerous, I don't know why people live in cities when the pollution causes so many health problems, I don't know why people keep hanging out with other people when so many turn out to be reprehensible, etc. The answer is, because life is not about living the longest in the most austere manner possible.
People drive because they need to get home for shelter, or get to work, etc. People live in cities because that's where the higher paying jobs are, again for survival, also given that one can use air purifiers at home and wear a mask outdoors. It is irresponsible to accept risk without reward.
In many developing countries, alcohol risks being contaminated with methanol which is extremely deadly. I wouldn't consider taking such an unnecessary risk to feel pleasant. Knowing everything I know, I would feel more scared than pleasant.
It's not odd; it's the burden of being aware and not ignorant. Of course I take pleasure in several things that won't give me cancer. I also realize that true pleasure comes only after labor and pain. In contrast, alcohol is the kind of pleasure that is followed by pain.
I have a relative who drank regularly. He now has a bad case of gout because of his drinking.
Two others got diabetes from all the unhealthy food they ate while drinking, and died from it.
A coworker who drank regularly got brain cancer and died from it.
An ex-friend long ago basically killed someone drinking and driving.
Most humans don't learn from the dead but they should.
reply