• hypnoton@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Agreed. Also to add, it’s much better than having almost no power and almost no privacy like right now.

    Besides, maybe you can think of another way to restrain the accumulationists at the top of society.

    Right now being a billionaire is zero risk, zero downside. It’s not a trade-off but a strict upgrade from the middle class. No wonder the billionaires are insane and detached from reality.

    So either risk (like randomly executing some of them every year), or a downside, or both have to be added to the equation to keep the top of the society in check.

    • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Taxes, government ownership, or communal ownership. For example, tax all wealth above $100m at 100%.

      • hypnoton@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Taxes can be imposed after the billionaires are afraid to bribe the government.

        Right now there is zero risk, zero downside for a billionaire to finance elections, offer revolving door opportunities, control via ownership almost all the media. Also zero risk, zero downside for the public officials to whore themselves out. All the political whores are walking and jetting around in safety and in luxurious comfort. Why would these folks change their behaviours?

        Right now when a government official renegs on their promises, there is zero risk, zero downside. Politicians can promise to raise taxes on the superrich and just never do it, and zero risk, zero downside.

        • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well, privacy can be infringed as a motivator after tax and campaign finance reform. Prison is a bigger motivator.