6 ms·
My takeaway is that billionaires are dangerous. Un-checked power is dangerous. I remember the first time I heard someone say they thought there shouldn't be Bi
by JKCalhoun 2y ago
My takeaway is that billionaires are dangerous. Un-checked power is dangerous.
I remember the first time I heard someone say they thought there shouldn't be Billionaires, we shouldn't even allow there to be Billionaires my Capitalist mind reeled, "Say wut?"
And then I started watching the world careen further out of control and could see that in fact the problem might just be wielding of financial power that really is the root of the problem.
- afh1 2y ago[flagged]
- contagiousflow 2y agoHow is that even a comparison? Governments are elected Edit: To Americans, fix your own democracy before you think the idea of democracy is broken.
- desumeku 2y agoIs that supposed to make a difference?
- contagiousflow 2y agoIn countries other than America it sure does...
- pjmorris 2y agoThat's what James Madison thought (see Federalist #51)
- afh1 2y agohttps://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Nozick.pdf https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Nozick.pdf
- alabastervlog 2y agoWell. That sure was a libertarian who thought he had a point.
- contagiousflow 2y agoDemocracy: famous for never improving human rights and freedoms.
- lr4444lr 2y agoBy rational people who can think in nuance, and aren't influenced by big campaign spending?
- contagiousflow 2y agoSee countries outside of America for this.
- desumeku 2y agoYou mean countries like Romania, who had their election forcibly cancelled because the EU is scared of Russian social media posts, and Germany, who thinks that a man giving a speech and promoting a certain party is election interference?
- latentcall 2y agoLeon has tons of influence unfortunately all over, so yes it’s tantamount to interference. South African citizen shouldn’t have any say in politics outside of South Africa.
- desumeku 2y agoThis is literally totalitarianism. What the hell? I shouldn't be able to say that I support the AfD just because I don't live in Germany?
- contagiousflow 2y agoNo one's saying you can't. The equation changes when a foreign billionaire (and richest man in the world) is saying it.
- desumeku 2y agoIf you think democracy is threatened because someone pledges their public support for a specific party, then you don't actually believe in democracy.
- dapf 2y ago[dead]
- somelamer567 2y agoThe central tenet of techno-fascism / the hard alt-Right / the Dark Enlightenment, is that democracy itself is incompatible with "freedom" (as techno-fascists understand it).
- contagiousflow 2y agoAnd based on the replies, we're rapidly blazing down that path.
- nerdponx 2y agoThe idea that democracy is broken is a convenient piece of propaganda, promulgated by people who have something to gain by weakening the American government, whether that's financial or geopolitical.
- protimewaster 2y agoWhat's the solution?
- _heimdall 2y agoA smaller, less powerful government?
- moduspol 2y agoWe're not willing to try that.
- protimewaster 2y agoThe government is almost always going to be relatively huge, though, if you're comparing it to a single wealthy person. It's very unlikely we have a $500,000 federal government.
- _heimdall 2y agoThere's a huge gap between a single wealthy person and what we have today. Surely there's a middle ground. I have to assume the government currently had authority that most people wouldn't actually want it to have, and that the budget has a long list of even just low hanging fruit where money is being wasted on things tax payers wouldn't want it spent on is wouldn't agree with how its done.
- consteval 2y agoWe used to have this and, well, it sucked. Turns out people are still extremely rich but in their own little governments - what we call corporations. This may seem like an improvement. But these people aren’t elected, so we’re back at square one minus the democracy part. We had less regulation, less rules, less taxation. People were poor. They were sick. They died when they shouldn’t have. They were illiterate. They were easily influenced. The economy suffered. Markets crashed. People lost their jobs. People starved. So we decided, “hm maybe that doesn’t work like we thought it did”. Pretty much everyone was on board. The government has many faults, yes, but many powers too. Power is distributed, and even you yourself hold some power. Having 20,000 people making decisions across 300 agencies sounds awful at first - but is having 10 people making decisions behind closed doors in a boardroom better?
- chasing 2y agoI can participate in the selection and election of officials in the US Government. And I know my views have some small influence over their actions. I can’t vote Peter Thiel out of being wealthy and obnoxious. And I know he doesn’t give a shit about me.
- hnthrow90348765 2y agoI'm more worried about losing my job/house/savings due to billionaires fucking around with the market, companies, and employees than the government. >There lies the real concentration of power. They're both real
- Muromec 2y agoWe should and some are. Now combining the two isnt making it less scary
- layer8 2y agoGovernments (are supposed to) have checks and balances. Billionaires not so much.
- lm28469 2y agoBillionaires influence the government, not the other way around, especially in the US which is heavily controlled by lobbyists...
- htek 2y agoI'm really not. The government consists of many people with a range of ideologies and ethics. Are there problems? Of course. But, the government has checks and balances, well, HAD checks and balances, separation of powers, and a Constitution that limited those powers. I'm more afraid of the corruption of the SCOTUS with dark money and a religio-fascist movement of persuasion and influence toward members of the SCOTUS, Congress, Judiciary and the Executive. It is a handful of billionaires who are driving this race toward authoritarianism.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cjfd 2y agoBig countries are in a position to abuse their power. E.g., they start wars. Your worries are partially addressed by the separation of powers. The trillionaire government is split in three branches which helps curtail its power. It is not the task of a government to be efficient, it is the task of a government to be correct. I.e., have somewhat just laws that are executed somewhat correctly. I am saying 'somewhat' twice because one should not expect miracles but one can hope for livable and perhaps even prosperous conditions. The threatening collapse of this separation is one big current thing to worry about in the US. A government that respects the separation of powers is less threatening than a company of a tenth or a hundreth its size because the company can act out the will of a single individual. Generally it is true that if an individual/organization gets too much power he/she/it will find a way to abuse it. But government is also necessary to ensure that another, most likely much more intrusive government, comes in by force and starts reigning over you. And also to ensure that big companies and rich people do not abuse their power too much. What is needed in general is that the natural tendency of power to concentrate is kept in check by other powers. In the US this system was thrown out of whack mostly because of the enormous amounts of money needed to fund campaigns in combination with a two party system. It was way too easy to just buy both parties until one of the parties decided to go rogue and become the billionaire interest group, as if billionaires need an interest group. Over time enough damage, mostly in the form of large uncertainty and/or poverty for the average citizen, was done to society so the discontentment over this enabled the fascist leader to rise. Only the future can tell what the result of that will be but it is not impossible that a billion dead bodies will need to be buried because of this. Compared to that your 'ever increasing creep over all aspects of your life' seems a bit of a minor and/or theoretical concern.
- nerdponx 2y agoThe alternative of no or tightly-limited government is potentially worse. It's an economic form of the paradox of tolerance. One can imagine all kinds of exotic forms of government that don't resemble a traditional large and centrally organized state, which still accomplish summer all of the goals that we might want a state to accomplish. But so far we have never seen that put into effect at any scale above a commune. So we are kind of stuck with the binary choice for the time being.
- chasing 2y agoYup. It’s hard to live in a democracy with billionaires. It’s going to be basically impossible with trillionaires. We waited until the ultra-wealthy figured out how to weaponize their power against us. It may be too late. But we have to reduce the wealth gap as a priority step to fixing democracy.
- GuB-42 2y agoGovernments, which, in representative democracies are led by elected officials still have power over billionaires. If the US government wants Peter Thiel assets, including his life, it can just take them, and if Peter Thiel is unhappy, the US government has an army, Peter Thiel doesn't. It doesn't happen because the elected government doesn't want to. In the USSR, it would have happened, but such politics didn't work well in the end. The current system that allows billionaires is not perfect, but unless shown otherwise, it is the least bad.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoWell, least bad if your choices are what the U.S. has now and the U.S.S.R. Some of us wouldn't mind at least going back to before (so called) Citizens United.
- hx8 2y agoThose aren't are only two options. We could raise billionaire taxes to take a larger portion of their assets. We could adjust anti-trust law to limit the power of their companies. We could adjust campaign finance law to limit their influence on politics. We could better fund a free press to better inform people on their actions. The question is how should the power of governments and the ultra wealthy be balanced.
- hackyhacky 2y ago> It doesn't happen because the elected government doesn't want to. You're skipping over the point of why they don't want to seize the billionaire his assets: because a billionaire is a valuable ally to a politician seeking to stay in power. In fact, a billionaire is more valuable to a politician than his actual constituents. And that's how we get oligarchs.
- mrkstu 2y agoThe problem, of course, is that the way humanity is set up, only billionaires can do some important things. Regardless of your feelings about Elon, what would the strategic implications for the US vs Russia and China be minus SpaceX? SpaceX can exist solely because of the way our system is set up to reward founders with large amounts of capital. The same goes for large portions of our economy- the same parts that have kept the US financially afloat vs the rest of the world and provide massive funding to states like California to support their progressive policies. Imagine California without Silicon Valley and you imagine it without billionaires.
- mola 2y agoIcbm were done without SpaceX GPS was done without SpaceX
- ultrablack 2y agoNothing stopped NASA from doing what SpaceX did. Or New York City. Its not like they started with billions and billions. In fact, many claims that it was all funded by the government. Well, why didn't they just built it themselves?
- JKCalhoun 2y agoYou mention China, Russia — who are the billionaires over there we are counter-acting with Musk, etc.?
- gnz11 2y agoSilicon Valley existed before billionaires and plenty of university/government funding flowed in. Silicon Valley doesn’t require billionaires but billionaires require Silicon Valley.
- dapf 2y ago[dead]
- itishappy 2y agoThat was a major point in Bernie's response to the State of the Union last night. > [Americans] want us to end a corrupt campaign finance system, which allows a handful of billionaires to buy elections. It is beyond crazy that someone like Elon Musk can contribute over $270 million to help get Trump elected and then gets to run the government. > It is absurd that any Member of Congress who stands up to Netanyahu’s brutal war in Gaza can expect to be opposed by millions of dollars in campaign contributions from AIPAC. > [Americans] want us to end the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision and move to the public funding of elections. Democracy is supposed to be about one person, one vote – not billionaires buying the political candidates of their choice. https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/prepared-remarks-sanders-delivers-livestreamed-response-to-president-trumps-congressional-address/ https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/prepared-remar... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQjKGKUKpQc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQjKGKUKpQc
- flyinglizard 2y agoSorry to nitpick but it isn't "Nethanyahu's war" in Gaza any more than it is "Zelenskyy's war" in Ukraine.
- itishappy 2y agoVery much agree. No worries, I'm open to criticism, and I think politicians should be too! I don't quite agree with all of Bernie's points here, but the campaign financing in particular stood out to me.
- rozap 2y agoYou may do well to read a bit about the history of Zionism. The things you learn may be surprising.
- burntalmonds 2y agoI don't have a problem with billionaires per se, but I do have a problem with them being able to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence politics and undermine our very system of government.
- _bohm 2y agoHaving that power is inseparable from being a billionaire
- throwway120385 2y agoIt didn't used to be until Citizens United. Before that point donation to a Political Action Committee was indistinguishable from donation to a campaign, and that decision created a distinction that the rich then ruthlessly exploited to fund campaign ads and paid speakers and paid writers on social media.
- moduspol 2y agoThey didn't start doing it in 2024. Also, at least in the US, it's the side that spent a lot less money that won. Just like in 2016. Besides, having money is only one form of influence. One might also have influence from a massive federal bureaucracy, legacy media, Hollywood, academia, workers' unions, and other places.
- eat 2y ago> Also, at least in the US, it's the side that spent a lot less money that won. Just like in 2016. I'm sorry, which side purchased Twitter?
- bbor 2y agoI'm totally with you, but to pull the tent up even further: you don't even need to be scared of billionaires to be scared of Thiel -- I would trade a thousand Buffets for a single Thiel. In case anyone hasn't read it yet, I highly recommend you read his (short) Q42024 letter to the Palantir shareholders: https://www.palantir.com/q4-2024-letter/en/ https://www.palantir.com/q4-2024-letter/en/ It starts with typical SV hype, but by the end he espouses Samuel Huntington's theory that the world will soon fall into a vicious race war, and that the White ("western") World--the US, the white-majority Commonwealth states, and Western & Central Europe--should strike first to assure its dominance. Our enemies in this war will supposedly be primarily 2) team Every-Muslim-Country ("civilizational conflicts are particularly prevalent between Muslims and non-Muslims") and 3) team China+Korea, but there's also six other races ("civilizations") in the mix: 4) Latin America, 5) Sub-Saharan Africa (minus South Africa), 6) Russia+West Asia+Eastern Europe, 7) Southeast Asia, 8) Japan, and 9) India. I know it sounds like I'm being absurdly hyperbolic, but... well, lets just say I'm afraid of Peter Thiel: As Samuel Huntington has written, the rise of the West was not made possible “by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion . . . but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.” He continued: “Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington
- senordevnyc 2y agoFirst of all, that letter is from Karp, not Thiel. And your reading of this letter, and Huntington's theory of the clash of civilizations, is absurdly alarmist and misleading. I'm not saying Huntington was correct but he's not some fringe far-right nutjob hoping for a "vicious race war".
- dale_glass 2y agoMoney is too limited of a lens. The wealth of billionaires is mostly in things like company ownership. Imagine for a minute that Musk could somehow made be worth only $1M. He's still where he is, he just doesn't have billions worth of shares to sell. Does that solve any problems? I don't think that it solves much, no. He might not have billions' worth himself anymore, but he's still in control of huge companies. So rather than giving millions as direct political donations he could do things like hiring people as a favor or promising to build a factory here or there. His ability to wield political influence wouldn't change much it'd just take a bit more work. So I think "no billionaires" isn't nearly enough, you need to somehow transition to some system where there can't be a person (or just a few) on top of a multi-billion company.
- pllbnk 2y agoIn software engineering divide and conquer is considered a key pattern. In business, it is widely considered that large monolithic entities are the most efficient at delivering results. My point of view is that these large entities seem and have the power to pretend that they are efficient. In the long run, as with all monolithic structures (think large cities, geographically large countries, large monolithic software projects), the inefficiencies start tearing them at the seams, each in different ways. Ultimately, if large megastructures were the most efficient, then humanity should strive for a single country (or a corporation) to run the whole humanity but that's never the case - never was, never will be. And that's tightly related to your argument that billionaires should not exist. As another commenter pointed out, it's difficult to calculate the wealth of a person. Therefore, we should make it easy. Is your cash and your assets worth over X amount? If so, choose which ones to transfer to public national escrow during the upcoming fiscal year. It's not perfect, and I am sure clever lawmakers could come up with more nuanced and fair approaches, but it's better than the current state.