5 ms·

Is the only thing holding you back from murder lack of funds? If not, why do you think billionaires are any different?

chottocharaii 8y ago
He probably assumes becoming mega rich requires a certain form of sociopathy that ditinguishes the group from the rest of us.
tuesdayrain 8y ago
If I had near infinite funding + the opportunity to be above the law, I'd definitely be tempted to act as some sort of vigilante.
- newsbinator 8y ago
  Bill Gates realized he could save a lot more kids from the heartache of losing their parents by curing malaria in millions permanently, instead of stopping the Joker from robbing individuals a few nights a week.
hnaccy 8y ago
Presumably a billionaire would be better suited to both get away with and profit from such a murder.
- geomark 8y ago
  In places where the rule of law is weak and corruption is rampant it is easy to literally get away with murder just by paying off the police. But that doesn't protect you from retribution from associates of the people you had killed. You have to either wipe out the entire enemy tribe, or make it look like a very convincing accident, or very convincingly pin it on someone else. Sometimes you combine those with the assistance of the corrupt police.
forkLding 8y ago
Likely in societies with more corruption and low labour costs, using gangsters as intimidation and to assassinate your opponents is more frequent. Happened in China, underground gangsters would phone up rich local businessmen asking if they needed their services. As well, debt collection agencies in certain countries are opaque enough that their practices border on near-criminal.
baddox 8y ago
If the only thing holding you back from murder is a lack of funds, you are probably more likely than average to become a billionaire.
newsbinator 8y ago
If television is to be believed, detective work is discovering means, motive and opportunity. By that measure, billionaires are in any given instant 2/3rds of the way there.
drb91 8y ago
Large companies and those who run them can be both ruthless and amoral. I think it’s a mistake to think the average person’s intuition would apply here.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  This is it. If you tell a typical senior executive at a company that their actions will lead to the death of 10 million people, their primary concern will be if the company will still make money one the deal, then how they can hide their actions from regulators in order to maximize their return. You might think they would consider whether or not they'd be jailed, but that thought never crosses their mind.
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    I disagree. Very, very few people, CEOs included have that little disregard for human life. Most CEOs aren't that different from you or I.
    - drb91 8y ago
      FWIW I agree, but the CEOs that do fit the mold of ruthless and amoral are extraordinarily well suited for large scale business.
    - mywittyname 8y ago
      I've seen enough evidence of senior leadership of major companies disregarding human life. Car manufactures are particularly bad in this respect, lots of major safety issues in vehicles wouldn't be fixed if not for regulators, since wrongful death lawsuits are cheaper than fixing the issue. You can look at cigarettes companies for trying to deflect from medical evidence that they cause cancer. Similarly with asbestos and black lung. There's so much evidence that senior leadership at large companies are more than willing to let people die rather than pay out. Down vote me all you want, but there's plenty of evidence to convince me.
- cm2187 8y ago
  Beside moral grounds which you seem to give people little credit for, highly educated people who have been financially successful know how to make money by legal means. The risk benefit ratio is just not worth it particularly in a western country where the chances of getting away with murder are pretty slim (there aren’t many unsolved high profile murders).

He probably assumes becoming mega rich requires a certain form of sociopathy that ditinguishes the group from the rest of us.

tuesdayrain 8y ago

If I had near infinite funding + the opportunity to be above the law, I'd definitely be tempted to act as some sort of vigilante.

newsbinator 8y ago
Bill Gates realized he could save a lot more kids from the heartache of losing their parents by curing malaria in millions permanently, instead of stopping the Joker from robbing individuals a few nights a week.

hnaccy 8y ago

Presumably a billionaire would be better suited to both get away with and profit from such a murder.

geomark 8y ago
In places where the rule of law is weak and corruption is rampant it is easy to literally get away with murder just by paying off the police. But that doesn't protect you from retribution from associates of the people you had killed. You have to either wipe out the entire enemy tribe, or make it look like a very convincing accident, or very convincingly pin it on someone else. Sometimes you combine those with the assistance of the corrupt police.

forkLding 8y ago

Likely in societies with more corruption and low labour costs, using gangsters as intimidation and to assassinate your opponents is more frequent. Happened in China, underground gangsters would phone up rich local businessmen asking if they needed their services. As well, debt collection agencies in certain countries are opaque enough that their practices border on near-criminal.

baddox 8y ago

If the only thing holding you back from murder is a lack of funds, you are probably more likely than average to become a billionaire.

newsbinator 8y ago

If television is to be believed, detective work is discovering means, motive and opportunity. By that measure, billionaires are in any given instant 2/3rds of the way there.

drb91 8y ago

Large companies and those who run them can be both ruthless and amoral. I think it’s a mistake to think the average person’s intuition would apply here.

mywittyname 8y ago
This is it. If you tell a typical senior executive at a company that their actions will lead to the death of 10 million people, their primary concern will be if the company will still make money one the deal, then how they can hide their actions from regulators in order to maximize their return. You might think they would consider whether or not they'd be jailed, but that thought never crosses their mind.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  I disagree. Very, very few people, CEOs included have that little disregard for human life. Most CEOs aren't that different from you or I.
  - drb91 8y ago
    FWIW I agree, but the CEOs that do fit the mold of ruthless and amoral are extraordinarily well suited for large scale business.
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    I've seen enough evidence of senior leadership of major companies disregarding human life. Car manufactures are particularly bad in this respect, lots of major safety issues in vehicles wouldn't be fixed if not for regulators, since wrongful death lawsuits are cheaper than fixing the issue. You can look at cigarettes companies for trying to deflect from medical evidence that they cause cancer. Similarly with asbestos and black lung. There's so much evidence that senior leadership at large companies are more than willing to let people die rather than pay out. Down vote me all you want, but there's plenty of evidence to convince me.
cm2187 8y ago
Beside moral grounds which you seem to give people little credit for, highly educated people who have been financially successful know how to make money by legal means. The risk benefit ratio is just not worth it particularly in a western country where the chances of getting away with murder are pretty slim (there aren’t many unsolved high profile murders).