4 ms·

You provide a good depiction of the current state but that still does not explain why some person that has as much as 100'000 others do is inherently a bad thin

You provide a good depiction of the current state but that still does not explain why some person that has as much as 100'000 others do is inherently a bad thing. Tilting the system in their favor may be undesirable for the society at large but now 1. that is something natural to do and is actually done by each of us (and the very attempt of incriminating the rich for their status can be counted as example) and 2. it would make more sense to narrow the targeting to the individuals that actually do that kind of tilting/corruption of the system. Blaming the rich for being rich will have bad consequence for the driving force that moves the society forward.

misingnoglic 8y ago
> You provide a good depiction of the current state but that still does not explain why some person that has as much as 100'000 others do is inherently a bad thing. Is it really that hard to see that people having more wealth than they can spend in a lifetime while others can't afford healthcare is an issue?
- restalis 8y ago
  "Is it really that hard to see that people having more wealth than they can spend in a lifetime while others can't afford healthcare is an issue?" Yes, because it lies on assumptions that I'm not sure I'd understand or agree on. Let me try. "More wealth than they can spend in a lifetime" could mean that financial independence or life of opulence is the assumed reason for that wealth. If that is your assumption, then I'd say that for taking on some enterprise that (at least for me) would serve insufficiently as a driving force long term. What would serve adequately would be gaining enough leverage to be able to eventually do some meaningful change in the world (for the better according to my values), i.e. to make as much as I can out of my existence. That may mean gaining more than I may require personally in my life and would be hard to understand for people with less potential (which consequently can afford to aspire only to some lesser goals). Do we, in the name of equality, have to limit the fruition of our potential? Do we have to limit the amount of wealth we can create as well? (The last two questions are society-wise.) EDIT: Regarding the sustainability and the potential social disturbance resulting from inequality, there was a sibling comment (that I've answered to) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19330811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19330811
  - turtlecloud 8y ago
    You do realize that there will be 100,000 poor people that are pissed right? And they will start rolling out the guillotines. Last I remember guns are still legal in this country and poor people have a lot of them.
    - restalis 8y ago
      One of the reasons we have a society at all is to prevent us hunting each other for whatever reason, all for the common good. When that stops working, the society falls apart. Good luck going through a communist revolution better than others though.

misingnoglic 8y ago

> You provide a good depiction of the current state but that still does not explain why some person that has as much as 100'000 others do is inherently a bad thing. Is it really that hard to see that people having more wealth than they can spend in a lifetime while others can't afford healthcare is an issue?

restalis 8y ago
"Is it really that hard to see that people having more wealth than they can spend in a lifetime while others can't afford healthcare is an issue?" Yes, because it lies on assumptions that I'm not sure I'd understand or agree on. Let me try. "More wealth than they can spend in a lifetime" could mean that financial independence or life of opulence is the assumed reason for that wealth. If that is your assumption, then I'd say that for taking on some enterprise that (at least for me) would serve insufficiently as a driving force long term. What would serve adequately would be gaining enough leverage to be able to eventually do some meaningful change in the world (for the better according to my values), i.e. to make as much as I can out of my existence. That may mean gaining more than I may require personally in my life and would be hard to understand for people with less potential (which consequently can afford to aspire only to some lesser goals). Do we, in the name of equality, have to limit the fruition of our potential? Do we have to limit the amount of wealth we can create as well? (The last two questions are society-wise.) EDIT: Regarding the sustainability and the potential social disturbance resulting from inequality, there was a sibling comment (that I've answered to) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19330811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19330811
- turtlecloud 8y ago
  You do realize that there will be 100,000 poor people that are pissed right? And they will start rolling out the guillotines. Last I remember guns are still legal in this country and poor people have a lot of them.
  - restalis 8y ago
    One of the reasons we have a society at all is to prevent us hunting each other for whatever reason, all for the common good. When that stops working, the society falls apart. Good luck going through a communist revolution better than others though.