this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
605 points (89.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

29723 readers
1274 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    1. NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    2. Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    3. Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
vatlark@lemmy.world
forkball@lemmy.world
quinten@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
605
Almost every problem in the world would be dealt with meaningfully if we outlawed billionaires. (lemmy.ca)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by ininewcrow@lemmy.ca to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
174 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Everytime I look at small problems or big global problems, if you follow the money trail, it all leads to some billionaire who is either working towards increasing their wealth or protecting their wealth from decreasing.

Everything from politics, climate change, workers rights, democratic government, technology, land rights, human rights can all be rendered down to people fighting another group of people who defend the rights of a billionaire to keep their wealth or to expand their control.

If humanity got rid of or outlawed the notion of any one individual owning far too much money than they could ever possibly spend in a lifetime, we could free up so much wealth and energy to do other things like save ourselves from climate change.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The other side of the argument is that the change of eliminating billionaires won't happen overnight. I wish I could pull a switch right now that could drain the bank accounts of billionaires and instantly transfer that wealth to millions of people but it won't work that way, ever.

Why not? "We" designed, built, and used such a switch before. It's #7 in this diagram:

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

And what is France ruled by now?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ah, but when was the last time they flipped that switch?

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I mean immediately after the French revolution, power passed into the hands of a bunch of (and I'm just looking at them randomly on Wikipedia here) what appear to be noblemen and aristocrats.

They certainly didn't hand it over to the likes of me and you.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

That's the problem with big, convulsive revolutions - it's the people who already have power that gets to hijack them. In the American revolution it was a class of rich slave-owners. In the Russian revolution, it was a class of party technocrats.

If you're going to do revolution, you'd better find a way that can't be hijacked by opportunistic racketeers.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 7 months ago

There will always be "noblemen", "aristocrats", "rich people", and they will always hold the keys to power.

The question is whether "rich" means ten times or ten million times as much wealth as a commoner.

The question is whether my boss is raking off 9% or 90% of the value I produce.

[–] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Kings I presume