this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
177 points (100.0% liked)
196
667 readers
63 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
The money goes where they want it to go, which is frequently not where it's needed.
And you are correct, they should not have the money, since they didn't earn it. They also shouldn't get to decide where it goes, since they aren't suited to make those decisions. It should be taken from them.
Behold, I am a pedant that agrees with you! However, I do believe that billionaires earned their money… in the same way that a plantation owner earned their terrifying hoard; using their complete moral depravity and means.
See you call that earning. I call it stealing. When something is earned, it would be wrong to take it from them.
Vikings earned their broadly spread genetics in much the same way, complete moral depravity and means. Just because something is stolen doesn’t make it unearned, and just because something is earned doesn’t entitle possession. Theft begets reprisal.
Labor theory of value as applied to all human activity.
Just examples to illustrate that earning, deserving, rightfully belonging, etc. aren’t necessarily the right words to use in this context, but I guess it could be seen as vaguely communist in the right light. More sociological than political, though. Tax the rich, jail the physically and sexually belligerent.
it's not a communist sentiment at all. labor theory of value is predicated on socially necessary labor not just doing any old thing.
what youre doing with those statements though is pretty disingenuous. the idea of earning comes from labor (it's literally the germanic to english word for a laborer and their pay) and has always meant that the subject of the verb deserves the object.
you could argue that the raiding parties believed they had earned their spoils, but in a human culture that generally doesn't hold that belief, saying it without that qualifier implies assent to the ancient raiding parties belief.
Judging historic people by today’s morals just produces the opinion that everyone born more than 100 years ago probably deserved to have been gutted like the swine they are, which is exhausting but entirely true to modern standards. It’s just easier to think of them as amoral animals- the gazelle deserves the cheetah and vice versa by pure mechanics alone. Abelard castrated himself obsessing about the moral line, which was lesson enough for me.
As I said, I was just being a pedant for funsies. To phrase it another way, billionaires deserve their fortune but deserve its forfeiture a hundred times over. Deserve wasn’t exactly the right word so I poked fun while agreeing with their sentiment in its entirety. It was entirely disingenuous, and I said as much at the get-go.
it really doesn't unless a person renders that judgement outside of consideration of their experiences, world and circumstances.
in which case you could say anything about anyone for any reason and have it be perfectly acceptable.
I believe they're alluding to the wealthy funneling their money into foundations and other "charitable" endeavors as basically being a money wash that also comes with a lot of power to influence things. Their charity comes with strings and when you're talking about the vast sums they wield, it has the ability to derail other charities or efforts that may have been more focused on the actual task/problem. If NPR decides not to run a story critical of Microsoft or the Gates's because the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation are donors, does that charity still have a net positive effect?
If they still have billions to their name, they're not as good or generous as they've made you think they are.
Most of these people only have billions in stocks. 2 things would happen if they sold these stocks: the stock prices would decrease (leading to them losing a lot more money than they would plan) and other people (with worse entintions) would buy the stocjs so they control the company and then push anti consumer changes