3 ms·
It is kind of funny reading through these comments. The author's point is that power should be distributed and decisions should be made outside of those with co
by supercanuck 6y ago
It is kind of funny reading through these comments. The author's point is that power should be distributed and decisions should be made outside of those with concentrated amounts of wealth. Kind of like a democracy.
Folks on this thread seem to be falling over themselves arguing that billionaires are justified to even be billionaires at all.
The issue isn't that billionaires exist, its that billionaires have cornered all the decision making abilities of the public.
- mac01021 6y agoBut how have they done that? We _do_ live in a democracy (well, a republic -- in the USA). The government/legislature does seem, to a large extent, to be beholden to the wants of the immensely wealthy, but that's only because the electorate at large won't hold their representatives accountable for that behavior. Despite having more resources and more leisure time than has been possible throughout most of history, people don't stay informed, contemplate policy, engage in activism, interact with their legislators ... The laws of human psychology may simply not afford people people enough agency for a large democracy to be fair and effective.
- supercanuck 6y agoEssentially, you, me, the author of this piece is saying the same thing. The populace needs to take back control over their governance, and the way the author is proposing to do that is by getting involved in by "joining organizations, membership lists and movements that work toward building cross-racial, cross-class coalitions of people — with a goal to create a future that benefits most people."
- mac01021 6y agoWould the need for the population to do those things be any less if there were no billionaires?