3 ms·

This exactly why I personally believe that a cult of assassins who murder those who grow too powerful is essential in a society where clinical immortality exist

This exactly why I personally believe that a cult of assassins who murder those who grow too powerful is essential in a society where clinical immortality exists. If the richest man alive can pay whatever is necessary to preserve his own life, indefinitely, it stands to reason that some portion of his wealth and power would be permanently dedicated to preserving that privilege. If the rich man withdraws from society, and dedicates some or all resources to preservation of the self, society then acquires an interest in supporting those who would murder him and take all his stuff, thus returning it to market circulation. Prior to clinical immortality, you can always count on a change in estate financial management, because everyone who owns stuff will eventually die and cede control of it to others. You don't have to murder, because time and entropy do it for you.

magduf 9y ago
Oh please. We don't have immortality now, and actually we probably live longer that we ever did in the past. Yet our history is full of true horrors perpetuated by horrible leaders: just look at the horrors of WWII. These days, people are living longer, and we don't have those horrors any more (we still have some horrors, but overall things are much more peaceful than they were in the 1930s-40s). A cult of assassins could have really come in handy back then, to prevent 10s of millions of dead. I'm sorry, I see no evidence to back this idea of yours that longer lifespans will lead to worse societies. If anything, the opposite seems to be the case. Back when people didn't live very long (e.g., Medieval times), wars were extremely common, and some of the larger causes of death were war, fighting, crime, etc. Now people in developed nations don't have to worry so much about these, and need to worry a lot more about Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, heart disease, and car crashes. >If the rich man withdraws from society, and dedicates some or all resources to preservation of the self, society then acquires an interest in supporting those who would murder him and take all his stuff, thus returning it to market circulation. This is why we have things like property taxes. You don't need to murder rich people, you just need to raise property taxes on people who have far more property than normal people. This can be done any time with laws. The only reason we don't pass such laws is because common people refuse to demand such laws, or to vote for people who would pass such laws. Blame the voters.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  I feel as though your understanding of the relationship between wealth and political power is somewhat naive. Rich people can and do seize political power for no greater purpose than to lower their own taxes, and possibly also loot the treasury in the process. The voters do want higher taxes on the rich. But the rich own the news media outlets, and buy the attention and gratitude of the legislators, judges, and prosecutors, and own the contractor businesses that provide elections services to counties and municipalities. Whenever someone asks, "why are we not raising taxes on the rich?", someone has already been well paid to divert the conversation into an acrimonious distraction. Note that the wedge issues commonly used for this purpose are universally of low importance to the wealthy class. What makes you think that the rich will pay what the poor ask of them, when they have no effective means of enforcing their will?

magduf 9y ago

Oh please. We don't have immortality now, and actually we probably live longer that we ever did in the past. Yet our history is full of true horrors perpetuated by horrible leaders: just look at the horrors of WWII. These days, people are living longer, and we don't have those horrors any more (we still have some horrors, but overall things are much more peaceful than they were in the 1930s-40s). A cult of assassins could have really come in handy back then, to prevent 10s of millions of dead. I'm sorry, I see no evidence to back this idea of yours that longer lifespans will lead to worse societies. If anything, the opposite seems to be the case. Back when people didn't live very long (e.g., Medieval times), wars were extremely common, and some of the larger causes of death were war, fighting, crime, etc. Now people in developed nations don't have to worry so much about these, and need to worry a lot more about Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, heart disease, and car crashes. >If the rich man withdraws from society, and dedicates some or all resources to preservation of the self, society then acquires an interest in supporting those who would murder him and take all his stuff, thus returning it to market circulation. This is why we have things like property taxes. You don't need to murder rich people, you just need to raise property taxes on people who have far more property than normal people. This can be done any time with laws. The only reason we don't pass such laws is because common people refuse to demand such laws, or to vote for people who would pass such laws. Blame the voters.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
logfromblammo 9y ago
I feel as though your understanding of the relationship between wealth and political power is somewhat naive. Rich people can and do seize political power for no greater purpose than to lower their own taxes, and possibly also loot the treasury in the process. The voters do want higher taxes on the rich. But the rich own the news media outlets, and buy the attention and gratitude of the legislators, judges, and prosecutors, and own the contractor businesses that provide elections services to counties and municipalities. Whenever someone asks, "why are we not raising taxes on the rich?", someone has already been well paid to divert the conversation into an acrimonious distraction. Note that the wedge issues commonly used for this purpose are universally of low importance to the wealthy class. What makes you think that the rich will pay what the poor ask of them, when they have no effective means of enforcing their will?