3 ms·

I very strongly disagree that it's morally wrong. Let's say I provide a service to people for 1000$/pop. They value it at more than that and happily exchange mo

I very strongly disagree that it's morally wrong. Let's say I provide a service to people for 1000$/pop. They value it at more than that and happily exchange money for that service. I get my 1000$. I don't use almost any environmental or public resources to perform the service (I write code or perform massages or w/e). The mere fact that I exist and provide those services is beneficial for society even if I am taxed at 0%. There are of course issues if I have a monopoly or if I am extracting rent from what should be a common good (say natural resources of crucial piece of land) or if I am polluting while providing my services. There are also issues if what I do hurt others but they are or unrelated to the fact that I create wealth for myself. How is it wrong? What moral principle are you using to say it's wrong? My reasons are quite straightforward: by providing sought for services I am increasing my and my customer's happiness while not hurting others in the process. It's a win-win, the more I provide the more insanely win-win it is even if I collect a trillion dollars in the process.

Scarblac 11y ago
I know my opinion on this sort of thing isn't exactly popular, but I just feel that it is morally wrong for one person to have so much wealth that he can afford to control the entire output of a huge number of people over their entire working lives.
- bluecalm 11y ago
  I think it is quite popular. I also think it's misdirected. There is a lot of wealth which was built unfairly/abusing others/exploiting resources which should be a common good. Those are real problems. On the other side someone who is not abusing anything and just providing services to people is just net win for everyone. >>he can afford to control the entire output of a huge number of people over their entire working lives. That's vast majority of working Americans. Make 100k USD in few years and you are able to control a lot of lives around the world, not only output of their work. Buy a nice car, a Macbook and some clothes and you have just controlled output of more than one whole working life.

Scarblac 11y ago

I know my opinion on this sort of thing isn't exactly popular, but I just feel that it is morally wrong for one person to have so much wealth that he can afford to control the entire output of a huge number of people over their entire working lives.

bluecalm 11y ago
I think it is quite popular. I also think it's misdirected. There is a lot of wealth which was built unfairly/abusing others/exploiting resources which should be a common good. Those are real problems. On the other side someone who is not abusing anything and just providing services to people is just net win for everyone. >>he can afford to control the entire output of a huge number of people over their entire working lives. That's vast majority of working Americans. Make 100k USD in few years and you are able to control a lot of lives around the world, not only output of their work. Buy a nice car, a Macbook and some clothes and you have just controlled output of more than one whole working life.