4 ms·

> well, we can expropriate the wealth of billionaires if we need to” been an opinion The fact that it's not an opinion, doesn't mean it's not an option. Peopl

by GDC7 5y ago

> well, we can expropriate the wealth of billionaires if we need to” been an opinion The fact that it's not an opinion, doesn't mean it's not an option. People other than the far left don't want to do it, just like people don't want to treat a paper cut with cortisone off the bat. You always have the optionality to do it later, if needed be.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> The fact that it's not an opinion, doesn't mean it's not an option. Yes, and making me dictator for life is an option, but it isn't going to happen now is it? Lots of things are an option, but we must grapple with both the probability of them happening, and the historical incidence at which similar events occurred. In general if you're making the argument that A is easier than B, and B keeps happening at a much higher rate than A, then you're probably missing some very important detail to explain that difference. America, and the world really, has a long history of suppressing and extracting the wealth of large groups. Peasants, slaves, tenant farmers, sharecroppers, lower level laborers, and demographic minorities today have all had their wealth suppressed and extracted for the sake of someone else. Meanwhile the wealth of those elites being expropriated and given to the masses are extremely rare events[0]; much more common is elites overthrowing other elites to expropriate their wealth personally. For my part, I think you're overly focused on the mechanical aspects of confiscation rather than the political ones. Yes, if you get the political systems in alignment it is mechanically very easy to take Bezo's wealth; just take his bank accounts or hit him with a wrench until he authorizes a foreign transfer. But actually getting that political system in alignment to do that is extremely difficult; often even getting people like Bezos to pay the same tax rate as the rest of us is too big a political lift. As an analogy, it was pretty easy mechanically for the French to get rid of their kings. Paris was a city 650,000 strong, overwhelming the ~1,000 Swiss Guard protecting the king at the Tuileries palace and (eventually) executing the king was mechanically simple. After all, how hard can a battle be if you can muster a 16:1 advantage[1]? But while winning that battle was easy, getting to the point where the King was forced back into Paris and the mob was ready to literally kill him took a long long time to happen. The will to do things matters more than anything else. 0 - Not that you'd know that based on the amount of material produced on such events. I would argue that we're still living through the elite panic in reaction to the October Revolution, even the USSR was hardly an "expropriate the wealth of the rich in order to feed the masses" kinda place after Stalin took over. 1 - Actual order of battle for the storming of the Tuileries in 1792 was 20,000 republicans vs. 1,200 royalist guards. Generally military theorists hold up 4:1 as the tipping point where numbers overwhelm no matter the quality of leadership. At 16:1, the Swiss Guard stood no chance even though they were trained soldiers fighting a literal mob.
- GDC7 5y ago
  > In general if you're making the argument that A is easier than B, and B keeps happening at a much higher rate than A, then you're probably missing some very important detail to explain that difference Visiting a prostitute is way easier than dating, how many people visit prostitutes? Taking away a candy from a child is really easy, how many people actually do it? Rich individuals aren't seen as a threat, because they can be easily overpowered with violence What people see as threats are people who have a following such as politicians, thought leaders or technoutopian cult figures who also happen to be rich.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    > Visiting a prostitute is way easier than dating, how many people visit prostitutes? Ignoring the fact that a partner meets needs beyond sex, I think you're probably underestimating how many people actually pay for sex work. People just tend to not talk about that, because it's both illegal and heavily stigmatized. > Taking away a candy from a child is really easy, how many people actually do it? This implies that people treat children nicely because they're not a threat, which is a worrying implication. Personally, I think that people don't steal candy from children because they don't want to hurt children, especially over something as trivial as candy. > Rich individuals aren't seen as a threat, because they can be easily overpowered with violence Uhhh, what? Rich people are capable of bringing a huge amount of violence to bear, both in terms of their ability to hire armed citizens to protect them, and their ability to marshal the power of the state directly or indirectly. I'd highly recommend you read some history about labor organization in the United States. The armed representatives of rich men machine gunning down striking workers is a pretty common occurrence. Rich industrialists also made it de-facto illegal to be a socialist in the United States for most of the 20th century. And that's direct violence. We can also talk about the ability of the rich to starve people via blacklisting and the undermining of social safety nets. > What people see as threats are people who have a following such as politicians, thought leaders or technoutopian cult figures who also happen to be rich. <Insert "They're the same picture" meme here> Less glib, I think a lot of people see these as part of the same system. Rich people pretty quickly become politically entrenched or weird cult leaders, and the thought leaders are largely subsidized by the rich people that they write on the behalf of.

by GDC7 5y ago

ashtonkem 5y ago

> The fact that it's not an opinion, doesn't mean it's not an option. Yes, and making me dictator for life is an option, but it isn't going to happen now is it? Lots of things are an option, but we must grapple with both the probability of them happening, and the historical incidence at which similar events occurred. In general if you're making the argument that A is easier than B, and B keeps happening at a much higher rate than A, then you're probably missing some very important detail to explain that difference. America, and the world really, has a long history of suppressing and extracting the wealth of large groups. Peasants, slaves, tenant farmers, sharecroppers, lower level laborers, and demographic minorities today have all had their wealth suppressed and extracted for the sake of someone else. Meanwhile the wealth of those elites being expropriated and given to the masses are extremely rare events[0]; much more common is elites overthrowing other elites to expropriate their wealth personally. For my part, I think you're overly focused on the mechanical aspects of confiscation rather than the political ones. Yes, if you get the political systems in alignment it is mechanically very easy to take Bezo's wealth; just take his bank accounts or hit him with a wrench until he authorizes a foreign transfer. But actually getting that political system in alignment to do that is extremely difficult; often even getting people like Bezos to pay the same tax rate as the rest of us is too big a political lift. As an analogy, it was pretty easy mechanically for the French to get rid of their kings. Paris was a city 650,000 strong, overwhelming the ~1,000 Swiss Guard protecting the king at the Tuileries palace and (eventually) executing the king was mechanically simple. After all, how hard can a battle be if you can muster a 16:1 advantage[1]? But while winning that battle was easy, getting to the point where the King was forced back into Paris and the mob was ready to literally kill him took a long long time to happen. The will to do things matters more than anything else. 0 - Not that you'd know that based on the amount of material produced on such events. I would argue that we're still living through the elite panic in reaction to the October Revolution, even the USSR was hardly an "expropriate the wealth of the rich in order to feed the masses" kinda place after Stalin took over. 1 - Actual order of battle for the storming of the Tuileries in 1792 was 20,000 republicans vs. 1,200 royalist guards. Generally military theorists hold up 4:1 as the tipping point where numbers overwhelm no matter the quality of leadership. At 16:1, the Swiss Guard stood no chance even though they were trained soldiers fighting a literal mob.

GDC7 5y ago
> In general if you're making the argument that A is easier than B, and B keeps happening at a much higher rate than A, then you're probably missing some very important detail to explain that difference Visiting a prostitute is way easier than dating, how many people visit prostitutes? Taking away a candy from a child is really easy, how many people actually do it? Rich individuals aren't seen as a threat, because they can be easily overpowered with violence What people see as threats are people who have a following such as politicians, thought leaders or technoutopian cult figures who also happen to be rich.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > Visiting a prostitute is way easier than dating, how many people visit prostitutes? Ignoring the fact that a partner meets needs beyond sex, I think you're probably underestimating how many people actually pay for sex work. People just tend to not talk about that, because it's both illegal and heavily stigmatized. > Taking away a candy from a child is really easy, how many people actually do it? This implies that people treat children nicely because they're not a threat, which is a worrying implication. Personally, I think that people don't steal candy from children because they don't want to hurt children, especially over something as trivial as candy. > Rich individuals aren't seen as a threat, because they can be easily overpowered with violence Uhhh, what? Rich people are capable of bringing a huge amount of violence to bear, both in terms of their ability to hire armed citizens to protect them, and their ability to marshal the power of the state directly or indirectly. I'd highly recommend you read some history about labor organization in the United States. The armed representatives of rich men machine gunning down striking workers is a pretty common occurrence. Rich industrialists also made it de-facto illegal to be a socialist in the United States for most of the 20th century. And that's direct violence. We can also talk about the ability of the rich to starve people via blacklisting and the undermining of social safety nets. > What people see as threats are people who have a following such as politicians, thought leaders or technoutopian cult figures who also happen to be rich. <Insert "They're the same picture" meme here> Less glib, I think a lot of people see these as part of the same system. Rich people pretty quickly become politically entrenched or weird cult leaders, and the thought leaders are largely subsidized by the rich people that they write on the behalf of.