5 ms·

This is why being a billionaire should be functionally illegal. Tax away all of that wealth. It is immoral that we allow people to control that much wealth. Vas

This is why being a billionaire should be functionally illegal. Tax away all of that wealth. It is immoral that we allow people to control that much wealth. Vast wealth should be under democratic control.

jstx1 4y ago
Tax away… all the Meta stock? We’re talking about ownership of assets, not about income. What do we do when we take his stock - do we sell it back on the market crashing the price or do we establish government ownership of every large company? How did you come up with 1 billion as the appropriate number? Do we get to decide that part democratically?
- avidphantasm 4y ago
  You are presupposing that Meta should be allowed to exist at its present scale and market share. I am not.
  - spiderice 4y ago
    Then what are you proposing? You didn't answer a single one of GPs questions about the details of what you're proposing. You're just throwing out vague one-liners and expecting everyone else to see how this plan of yours is supposed to work.
credit_guy 4y ago
> It is immoral that we allow people to control that much wealth In my mind, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. Maybe you don't share this view, but quite a few people do.
- lovich 4y ago
  Is being a billionaire necessary for any of those or even related? Possibly on the liberty angle but someone controlling that much wealth is decreasing the liberty of everyone else in the economy
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    It's the pursuit of happiness. Zuckerberg is pursuing his own happiness. You claim we, as a society, have to curtail that at a given level. I for one don't subscribe to that theory.
    - apricot 4y ago
      Society often prevents people from pursuing their happiness, when such pursuit would be harmful to others. This doesn't mean the pursuit of happiness isn't important, only that it isn't an absolute.
    - lovich 4y ago
      I’ll be very frank on the fact that if your pursuit of happiness requires millions to billions of others to suffer, I will ascribe zero importance to what makes you happy. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose and all that. I’m also gonna quickly cut ahead on your libertarian style argument here and ask you how you think negative externalities generated by individuals should be handled. If your opinion is to ignore them because you should be allowed to do whatever you want, then I will treat you the same way you treat others and completely ignore your political opinions. I legitimately hope you surprise me
      - credit_guy 4y ago
        > I will ascribe zero importance to what makes you happy. You are saying zero, but it appears to me you ascribe quite a lot of importance. Enough to propose to put limits on what he is allowed to do. Externalities and tip of the nose? I fully concur with you here. If he's hurting anyone, he should be punished. But the externality you are talking about here is a very vague one, that him being rich makes the life of other people in some sense harder. And that may be so. But then, maybe not. The way you are saying it, all rich people are guilty. I'm against blanket statements like that. Maybe some rich people are guilty, and some are not. How will you tell which? How do you account for positive externalities? Musk did more for the advancement of electric vehicles than any other person on Earth. And even more for the space exploration renaissance. Does he get any brownie points for that?
manofmanysmiles 4y ago
So it’s somehow more moral to gang up and take someone else’s property by force? Can you explain your idea of morality?
- piva00 4y ago
  Yup, it was done when abolishing slavery, you just need to think outside of the box on what "property" means to you :)

jstx1 4y ago

Tax away… all the Meta stock? We’re talking about ownership of assets, not about income. What do we do when we take his stock - do we sell it back on the market crashing the price or do we establish government ownership of every large company? How did you come up with 1 billion as the appropriate number? Do we get to decide that part democratically?

avidphantasm 4y ago
You are presupposing that Meta should be allowed to exist at its present scale and market share. I am not.
- spiderice 4y ago
  Then what are you proposing? You didn't answer a single one of GPs questions about the details of what you're proposing. You're just throwing out vague one-liners and expecting everyone else to see how this plan of yours is supposed to work.

credit_guy 4y ago

> It is immoral that we allow people to control that much wealth In my mind, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. Maybe you don't share this view, but quite a few people do.

lovich 4y ago
Is being a billionaire necessary for any of those or even related? Possibly on the liberty angle but someone controlling that much wealth is decreasing the liberty of everyone else in the economy
- credit_guy 4y ago
  It's the pursuit of happiness. Zuckerberg is pursuing his own happiness. You claim we, as a society, have to curtail that at a given level. I for one don't subscribe to that theory.
  - apricot 4y ago
    Society often prevents people from pursuing their happiness, when such pursuit would be harmful to others. This doesn't mean the pursuit of happiness isn't important, only that it isn't an absolute.
  - lovich 4y ago
    I’ll be very frank on the fact that if your pursuit of happiness requires millions to billions of others to suffer, I will ascribe zero importance to what makes you happy. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose and all that. I’m also gonna quickly cut ahead on your libertarian style argument here and ask you how you think negative externalities generated by individuals should be handled. If your opinion is to ignore them because you should be allowed to do whatever you want, then I will treat you the same way you treat others and completely ignore your political opinions. I legitimately hope you surprise me
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      > I will ascribe zero importance to what makes you happy. You are saying zero, but it appears to me you ascribe quite a lot of importance. Enough to propose to put limits on what he is allowed to do. Externalities and tip of the nose? I fully concur with you here. If he's hurting anyone, he should be punished. But the externality you are talking about here is a very vague one, that him being rich makes the life of other people in some sense harder. And that may be so. But then, maybe not. The way you are saying it, all rich people are guilty. I'm against blanket statements like that. Maybe some rich people are guilty, and some are not. How will you tell which? How do you account for positive externalities? Musk did more for the advancement of electric vehicles than any other person on Earth. And even more for the space exploration renaissance. Does he get any brownie points for that?

manofmanysmiles 4y ago

So it’s somehow more moral to gang up and take someone else’s property by force? Can you explain your idea of morality?

piva00 4y ago
Yup, it was done when abolishing slavery, you just need to think outside of the box on what "property" means to you :)