7 ms·

The negatives need not be so similar for the two to occupy the same space of vast property ownership concerns - namely that a single person has what many consid

The negatives need not be so similar for the two to occupy the same space of vast property ownership concerns - namely that a single person has what many consider to be a troubling amount of wealth and power. EDIT: sentence structure change

ruleabidinguser 10y ago
Sorry, why is it concerning? It seems concerning to me but only if you choose not to really engage with what it means.
- DamnYuppie 10y ago
  Throughout human history there has never been a time where those in power, regardless of how obtained, didn't turn to violence and subterfuge to maintain it.
  - ruleabidinguser 10y ago
    Have you experienced violence from those in power? Its so easy to spread fear when you haven't used your brain. And have you considered how much of your lifestyle, the best parts of your lifestyle, is impossible under any system other than capitalism? I can't think of a better vehicle for diversity and indeed there certainly isn't one. It's almost insulting when people so casually dismiss these things.
    - candiodari 10y ago
      I have had things stolen from me by someone else and tried to get police help with that. And I've also stolen things from both poor and from large businesses and: a) confessed to it (thankfully before 18 years old, my advice from the experience : do not ever, ever, ever do this, no matter how obvious the situation is) b) gotten away with it Comparing the reactions of the authorities between what happened when I offended a large business, who wanted to make an example (I didn't realize this at the time but they never even want restitution or the stolen item back), and what happened when I tried to recover my own stolen property and attempted in vain to get ANYTHING done (other than "fill in this paper and add to this huge stack here") Just a piece of advice : DO NOT learn kids to not steal by having them return a stolen item, unless you know and trust the store owner. Does this count as violence ?
    - iamnotlarry 10y ago
      You may wish to tone down the condescension. Many people use their brains just fine and have, in fact, experienced violence from those in power. Perhaps they knew or were related to one of the dozens of people murdered by police. Perhaps they were turned away from a favorite recreational activity by armed BLM agents and snipers violently confiscating cattle. (Why does the BLM have snipers?) Maybe they were affected by government murders at Ruby Ridge, or police peppering of Occupy protesters, or maybe they were attacked by trained dogs near the Dakota pipeline. Maybe their children were threatened when they spoke out about a tax hike to hire more police. Maybe their relative is in lockup for crossing an imaginary line that arbitrarily bounds Arizona. Maybe their property was taken from them because it could generate higher tax revenue if a strip mall were built there instead. Maybe they read about somebody who fled for their life after exposing illegal activity on the part of the government. Maybe it is possible to use your brain and still be wary of the corrupt use of power in today's society.
- greghatch 10y ago
  My intention was to show why comparing the two things you mentioned and claiming the comparison is outrageous was not a reasonable dismissal of OP's concern - because they were talking about the similarities of society predicated on wealth accumulation generally and not the violence inflicted to protect that wealth and how that has changed over time. Many disagree with the tenants of capitalism regardless of how violent those in power are or how corrupted their authority is, the system itself can occur as strange, especially when it puts a lot of power into the hands of a few people - that causes uneasiness in many cultures and it is certainly something to think about as wealth inequality gaps widen, for better or worse. I don't really have any stake in the result of this conversation and my views aren't as critical of capitalism generally, I'm commenting because your out of hand dismissal of OP's comment made me think that you might either be erroneously framing the comment or reading his concern as something far more serious than the casual comment would otherwise indicate (at least, that's how I read it). Another way to read the OP would be something this - "Doesn't this remind anyone of how wealth was distributed in more clearly feudalistic times? Weird, right? - it makes me feel weird. I worry sometimes that this might be the beginnings of what we will consider to be a slip into a dystopian society. It worries me, and I wonder about it from time to time." EDIT: copy/pasted a little too much and repeated myself
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
mjfl 10y ago
But that's not the important part. The violence is the important part. Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they got a lot of money through force and not through productive economic activity. Also, I think it is extremely problematic to compare any system with large disparities of outcome with an essentially violent system like feudalism (or just defining "inequality = violence", which people do) because what you are doing is basically justifying violence against that system. Violence against capitalism has happened historically, multiple times, and has led to huge injustices, the slaughter of innocent people, and the ruin of every society that has tried it (unless they ease off like China). That alone is a great counterexample to the idea of capitalism = feudalism = violence.
- milesrout 10y ago
  Capitalism is inherently violent whether you like it or not. The police violently repress anyone seeking what they have a natural right to: their fair share of the wealth.
  - lukifer 10y ago
    Capitalism is absolutely violent, and just as concerned with with-holding value as providing it (the primary means of price negotiation is the threat of walking away). Look at how much food a grocery store throws away, or how many houses are unoccupied, all in the interests of accounting and bargaining leverage. However: I take umbrage with "natural right" (the only right nature guarantees is entropy and death), and "fair share" (as decided by whom?). I think a wealthy, free, and just society would include infrastructure investment and The Commons in addition to free enterprise and private property; but good luck getting every single person to agree on the same definition of "fair".
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      Grocery stores throw a lot of food away due to regulation and liability issues, not for bargaining leverage.
WalterBright 10y ago
> a troubling amount of wealth and power Any rookie cop can force you to pull over in your car, and confiscate any cash you have with you. Bezos can do none of that.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  Bezos can buy The Washington Post and use it a megaphone to shape elite debate and tilt policy towards his preferences. No rookie cop can do that.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    He can influence the voters, sure, from his soapbox. But he can't make anyone vote his way. It's the government that wields the power, not Bezos. Keep in mind that Clinton way outspent Trump, and had most of the media on her side, and still lost. Money and media do not buy elections.

ruleabidinguser 10y ago

Sorry, why is it concerning? It seems concerning to me but only if you choose not to really engage with what it means.

DamnYuppie 10y ago
Throughout human history there has never been a time where those in power, regardless of how obtained, didn't turn to violence and subterfuge to maintain it.
- ruleabidinguser 10y ago
  Have you experienced violence from those in power? Its so easy to spread fear when you haven't used your brain. And have you considered how much of your lifestyle, the best parts of your lifestyle, is impossible under any system other than capitalism? I can't think of a better vehicle for diversity and indeed there certainly isn't one. It's almost insulting when people so casually dismiss these things.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    I have had things stolen from me by someone else and tried to get police help with that. And I've also stolen things from both poor and from large businesses and: a) confessed to it (thankfully before 18 years old, my advice from the experience : do not ever, ever, ever do this, no matter how obvious the situation is) b) gotten away with it Comparing the reactions of the authorities between what happened when I offended a large business, who wanted to make an example (I didn't realize this at the time but they never even want restitution or the stolen item back), and what happened when I tried to recover my own stolen property and attempted in vain to get ANYTHING done (other than "fill in this paper and add to this huge stack here") Just a piece of advice : DO NOT learn kids to not steal by having them return a stolen item, unless you know and trust the store owner. Does this count as violence ?
  - iamnotlarry 10y ago
    You may wish to tone down the condescension. Many people use their brains just fine and have, in fact, experienced violence from those in power. Perhaps they knew or were related to one of the dozens of people murdered by police. Perhaps they were turned away from a favorite recreational activity by armed BLM agents and snipers violently confiscating cattle. (Why does the BLM have snipers?) Maybe they were affected by government murders at Ruby Ridge, or police peppering of Occupy protesters, or maybe they were attacked by trained dogs near the Dakota pipeline. Maybe their children were threatened when they spoke out about a tax hike to hire more police. Maybe their relative is in lockup for crossing an imaginary line that arbitrarily bounds Arizona. Maybe their property was taken from them because it could generate higher tax revenue if a strip mall were built there instead. Maybe they read about somebody who fled for their life after exposing illegal activity on the part of the government. Maybe it is possible to use your brain and still be wary of the corrupt use of power in today's society.
greghatch 10y ago
My intention was to show why comparing the two things you mentioned and claiming the comparison is outrageous was not a reasonable dismissal of OP's concern - because they were talking about the similarities of society predicated on wealth accumulation generally and not the violence inflicted to protect that wealth and how that has changed over time. Many disagree with the tenants of capitalism regardless of how violent those in power are or how corrupted their authority is, the system itself can occur as strange, especially when it puts a lot of power into the hands of a few people - that causes uneasiness in many cultures and it is certainly something to think about as wealth inequality gaps widen, for better or worse. I don't really have any stake in the result of this conversation and my views aren't as critical of capitalism generally, I'm commenting because your out of hand dismissal of OP's comment made me think that you might either be erroneously framing the comment or reading his concern as something far more serious than the casual comment would otherwise indicate (at least, that's how I read it). Another way to read the OP would be something this - "Doesn't this remind anyone of how wealth was distributed in more clearly feudalistic times? Weird, right? - it makes me feel weird. I worry sometimes that this might be the beginnings of what we will consider to be a slip into a dystopian society. It worries me, and I wonder about it from time to time." EDIT: copy/pasted a little too much and repeated myself
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

mjfl 10y ago

But that's not the important part. The violence is the important part. Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they got a lot of money through force and not through productive economic activity. Also, I think it is extremely problematic to compare any system with large disparities of outcome with an essentially violent system like feudalism (or just defining "inequality = violence", which people do) because what you are doing is basically justifying violence against that system. Violence against capitalism has happened historically, multiple times, and has led to huge injustices, the slaughter of innocent people, and the ruin of every society that has tried it (unless they ease off like China). That alone is a great counterexample to the idea of capitalism = feudalism = violence.

milesrout 10y ago
Capitalism is inherently violent whether you like it or not. The police violently repress anyone seeking what they have a natural right to: their fair share of the wealth.
- lukifer 10y ago
  Capitalism is absolutely violent, and just as concerned with with-holding value as providing it (the primary means of price negotiation is the threat of walking away). Look at how much food a grocery store throws away, or how many houses are unoccupied, all in the interests of accounting and bargaining leverage. However: I take umbrage with "natural right" (the only right nature guarantees is entropy and death), and "fair share" (as decided by whom?). I think a wealthy, free, and just society would include infrastructure investment and The Commons in addition to free enterprise and private property; but good luck getting every single person to agree on the same definition of "fair".
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    Grocery stores throw a lot of food away due to regulation and liability issues, not for bargaining leverage.

WalterBright 10y ago

> a troubling amount of wealth and power Any rookie cop can force you to pull over in your car, and confiscate any cash you have with you. Bezos can do none of that.

metaphorm 10y ago
Bezos can buy The Washington Post and use it a megaphone to shape elite debate and tilt policy towards his preferences. No rookie cop can do that.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  He can influence the voters, sure, from his soapbox. But he can't make anyone vote his way. It's the government that wields the power, not Bezos. Keep in mind that Clinton way outspent Trump, and had most of the media on her side, and still lost. Money and media do not buy elections.