2 ms·

Well the only thing that protects the top 1% wealth is the poorer people that will continuously be affected by this. By poorer people I mean police and all of t

Well the only thing that protects the top 1% wealth is the poorer people that will continuously be affected by this. By poorer people I mean police and all of the delicate systems that enables police to exist. Without law enforcement, there is absolutely no way these people could hang on to their wealth.

latency-guy2 3y ago
You're not winning hearts and minds by implying poor people would be violent lawless creatures raping and pillaging the world on a whim.
- bamboozled 3y ago
  I'm not implying this, but there is no way that one guy should have hundreds of billions and the next person should have zilch and starve. The only thing that protects such an unfair system is the law. If those enforcing the law are poor enough, they will take what they require. So they should IMO.
  - latency-guy2 3y ago
    > I'm not implying this > If those enforcing the law are poor enough, they will take what they require. So they should IMO. I guess we'll never know what words mean.
    - bamboozled 3y ago
      People have been forced to eat other people in dire situations. If a lot of people got into a situation like that, they will take what they need through whatever means necessary. That is what it means. No need to pretend I'm saying all humans are criminals, but it's how it is. If inequality gets to the stage where there was 1 million starving people, or a billionaire who owns a lot of farm land with food on it, I'm pretty sure the 1 million are going to take some of the farm land and food. Maybe all of it. Is it the starving, or the one who does not share the actual criminal? The law should be enforced but if things became severely skewed towards protecting a few and letting the rest suffer, then I think the law needs to be adapted. Maybe through taxation or something else. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?
- metricsdatanumz 3y ago
  Apparently you haven’t seen the TikToks in fast food joints, malls, and the like? Let me describe it; poor people looting and beating up employees. America today is living the problem at a small scale. I’m not saying it’s their fault. 100% the fault of a the general public as a whole for continuing to buy into promises of arbitrary meat suits projecting non-existent authority (society’s laws are not immutable physics). IMO the Tim Leary approach is 100% the correct approach. Less than 1 million sworn LEO inclusive of local, county, state, federal agencies. That small a police force in the land of 2A rights has no chance. Probably not even needed, just a sincere threat and the gerontocracy would have to pay attention. It does not so long as the market bears it. 160 million of Gen Alpha, GenZ, and Millennials have little to lose since they can’t afford anything and the vigor of youth on their side. They have little to fear from a handful of aging rich.
  - bamboozled 3y ago
    (society’s laws are not immutable physics). This is a great way to put it.
shiroiushi 3y ago
It's not just law enforcement, it's the political system that controls the law enforcement, and the voters who elect that political system. Most Americans really believe that wealth is earned and that strong measures to reduce wealthy peoples' wealth are morally wrong, so anyone who tries such a thing by political means will fail quickly at the polls, and anyone who tries by extra-political action will fail because the whole system, including law enforcement and a large chunk of American society, disagree with them and will oppose them. Heck, a significant portion of American society actually believes that wealth shows that God loves someone, and wealthy people are blessed by God! IMO, if you really believe that high wealth inequality is a bad thing for society, your best bet is to simply move to another society where your values are more in-line with the people and social structure there.

latency-guy2 3y ago

You're not winning hearts and minds by implying poor people would be violent lawless creatures raping and pillaging the world on a whim.

bamboozled 3y ago
I'm not implying this, but there is no way that one guy should have hundreds of billions and the next person should have zilch and starve. The only thing that protects such an unfair system is the law. If those enforcing the law are poor enough, they will take what they require. So they should IMO.
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  > I'm not implying this > If those enforcing the law are poor enough, they will take what they require. So they should IMO. I guess we'll never know what words mean.
  - bamboozled 3y ago
    People have been forced to eat other people in dire situations. If a lot of people got into a situation like that, they will take what they need through whatever means necessary. That is what it means. No need to pretend I'm saying all humans are criminals, but it's how it is. If inequality gets to the stage where there was 1 million starving people, or a billionaire who owns a lot of farm land with food on it, I'm pretty sure the 1 million are going to take some of the farm land and food. Maybe all of it. Is it the starving, or the one who does not share the actual criminal? The law should be enforced but if things became severely skewed towards protecting a few and letting the rest suffer, then I think the law needs to be adapted. Maybe through taxation or something else. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?
metricsdatanumz 3y ago
Apparently you haven’t seen the TikToks in fast food joints, malls, and the like? Let me describe it; poor people looting and beating up employees. America today is living the problem at a small scale. I’m not saying it’s their fault. 100% the fault of a the general public as a whole for continuing to buy into promises of arbitrary meat suits projecting non-existent authority (society’s laws are not immutable physics). IMO the Tim Leary approach is 100% the correct approach. Less than 1 million sworn LEO inclusive of local, county, state, federal agencies. That small a police force in the land of 2A rights has no chance. Probably not even needed, just a sincere threat and the gerontocracy would have to pay attention. It does not so long as the market bears it. 160 million of Gen Alpha, GenZ, and Millennials have little to lose since they can’t afford anything and the vigor of youth on their side. They have little to fear from a handful of aging rich.
- bamboozled 3y ago
  (society’s laws are not immutable physics). This is a great way to put it.

shiroiushi 3y ago

It's not just law enforcement, it's the political system that controls the law enforcement, and the voters who elect that political system. Most Americans really believe that wealth is earned and that strong measures to reduce wealthy peoples' wealth are morally wrong, so anyone who tries such a thing by political means will fail quickly at the polls, and anyone who tries by extra-political action will fail because the whole system, including law enforcement and a large chunk of American society, disagree with them and will oppose them. Heck, a significant portion of American society actually believes that wealth shows that God loves someone, and wealthy people are blessed by God! IMO, if you really believe that high wealth inequality is a bad thing for society, your best bet is to simply move to another society where your values are more in-line with the people and social structure there.