2 ms·
"Stealing" is the most polite, least offensive way I could put it. "Crime against humanity" is closer to the description I would otherwise use. Am I being more
by BLKNSLVR 1y ago
"Stealing" is the most polite, least offensive way I could put it.
"Crime against humanity" is closer to the description I would otherwise use. Am I being more clear? The effects of that level of accumulation of wealth and power on the individual, the community, country, and the world are grossly negative.
No one who has ever lived deserves that amount / percentage of wealth.
Where it gets blurry is "so, what is enough then?" and "what is to be done with anything over the "enough" amount?". I don't know the answer, I don't know when it turns from earnt to evil. I doubt there's a specific number, although specific numbers are required for laws and legislation and regulation, but it would defnitely be a variable amount depending on the individual at which they become irreparably morally bankrupt.
The correct answer, however, cannot possibly be: Just let them accumulate more forever. That's inarguably stupid, but that's where we're at.
- kortilla 1y agoI think you’re very confused about what people with this level of wealth actually own. They don’t have that much cash. They own a company that a lot of other people want a part of so the open market value for shares of that company go up significantly. There is no negative impact or stealing involved here. There isn’t even accumulation. All wealth gains at these magnitudes are through appreciation of existing assets. If the man who sent two pizzas in exchange for 10,000 Bitcoin just sat on that Bitcoin all of this time, he would be “stealing” or conducting a “crime against humanity”. Do you see how ridiculous that is?