3 ms·
Your anger is legitimate, but your line of thinking is misplaced. Going "we should not allow billionaires" leads directly to "we need an authority to limit and
by Asooka 9y ago
Your anger is legitimate, but your line of thinking is misplaced. Going "we should not allow billionaires" leads directly to "we need an authority to limit and redistribute gains". So you make The Authority which has ultimate authority over all political power and economic capital and now you're in a totalitarian state. If there is a singular group that is the only group allowed to have meaningful power, it won't be long before that group has all the power. Everybody is equal, but members of The Party are ten times as equal...
Instead you should be thinking "how do I/we get these obviously capable and motivated people to act in a way that benefits all of us". Zuckerberg didn't steal the money by overt force (what the socialist government used to do to us in East Europe), there was a long line of economic exchanges that benefited both parties in some way, that let him get to where he is. He started high, yes, and he reached even higher. The fact he's now acting churlish should not be cause for you to ask for the abolishment of basic human rights and liberties.
- khazhou 9y agoYour line of thinking is misplaced. The Authority is the US Govt and the mechanism is taxation. Explain to me how a drastic increase in taxes on a small number of individuals (effectively capping their income) brings us to a Totalitarian state? Amassing $75B is not a basic human right or liberty. And this has nothing at all do with someone acting churlish, or conversely with their potential to do wonderful things with that money. The question is just: as a society, do we allow a roomful of people to own more than half the nation combined? And how does this benefit the country? I say No — the disparity must be reined in.