5 ms·

It really makes me wonder why someone with that much wealth needs to go around making life worse for other people. At this point, it feels like a sickness. It'

It really makes me wonder why someone with that much wealth needs to go around making life worse for other people. At this point, it feels like a sickness. It's interesting that the constitution prevents America from having a king, or at least it used to, but maybe the founders didn't think about other kinds of kings. Because we're in a place, or we're getting to a place, where that's exactly what we have.

pbhjpbhj 1y ago
They generally got their wealth by making life worse for other people - isn't it just more of the same.
- givemeethekeys 1y ago
  Their customers are governments. People keep voting for politicians that will happily trade freedom for security.
  - t0bia_s 1y ago
    Because the danger that they keep us safe from is artificialy made by centralised governance. Divide and conquer.
k8sToGo 1y ago
Usually these people are wealthy because of the type of person they are and not the other way around
- ryandvm 1y ago
  Bingo. You don't get to be a billionaire by being chill, live and let live kind of guy. You take whenever you get the chance.
wartywhoa23 1y ago
Vampires have to do with blood only tangentially. It is vital energy in a broad sense that they're after, and stomping on people's freedom and privacy is but another way to suck it out.
righthand 1y ago
The constitution just enabled “many kings” through commerce rather than answering to a single king. Now the many kings take turns rotating into the leadership roles as they own the representation (the other thing the constitution enables) and snack on other kings. And when one of the favorite many kings fail they have the representatives say “this king is too big to fail, don’t let the small kings eat him, prop him up with money from the masses”.
b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
I doubt he sees it like that. Plenty of authoritarians think authoritarianism is best for society.
- sizzzzlerz 1y ago
  'long as they're the authoritarians-in-charge.
- stirfish 1y ago
  I genuinely think he's trying to sell more storage
  - b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
    That could be true too lol
majormajor 1y ago
"Concentration of power on the scale of today's mega-companies is bad" is an idea that would've resonated with the founders of the US. But it wasn't the immediate issue they were fighting, so it's not what got written down. The greatest trick of the elites has been convincing people that the Constitution is a holy religious artifact at this point instead of a document that will still need major patches as the world changes around it. Or maybe it's encouraging holy wars over the words of the Constitution while simply ignoring it - and especially the overall suspicion of power - whenever convenient. And thus we get a world where criticism of agents of the government is treason instead of patriotic oversight; where the police don't police their own but close ranks against external complaints.
resters 1y ago
I think what a lot of people don’t realize is that the nuisance that a middle class person might feel from an urban tent city or a rat infestation is quite similar to the nuisance that an extremely wealthy person would feel from the entire middle class.
ottah 1y ago
The constitution was written by the wealthy elites of society, for the wealthy elites of society to be free of the tyranny of a monarchy. It was not created to grant equal rights to all people. I.E., see the 3/5ths personhood of enslaved people.
- alexgieg 1y ago
  That's a misunderstanding of the intention of that provision. Back in the day slave owners had as many "votes" as they had slaves (the slaves themselves didn't vote), under the assumption they "cared for" those slaves and were representing them. This gave them immense political power. To curb the power of slave owners the anti-slavery States managed to approve, against slave owners' interests, the rule their slaves didn't count as full votes. This way slave owners had less total votes, strengthening the abolitionist camp.
  - ottah 1y ago
    I did not missunderstand anything. I said the constitution was not created to grant equal rights to all people. I think your elaboration illustrates that clearly.
Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
> the constitution prevents America from having a king This is only true until SCOTUS invents a new interpretation of the constitution that not only allows for a king, but asserts it must have a king (provided they are republican). I mean, who is going to stop them from doing that? Really though, who?
- asacrowflies 1y ago
  We the people.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
    The US doesn't have a "we", it only has an "us" and "them"

pbhjpbhj 1y ago

They generally got their wealth by making life worse for other people - isn't it just more of the same.

givemeethekeys 1y ago
Their customers are governments. People keep voting for politicians that will happily trade freedom for security.
- t0bia_s 1y ago
  Because the danger that they keep us safe from is artificialy made by centralised governance. Divide and conquer.

k8sToGo 1y ago

Usually these people are wealthy because of the type of person they are and not the other way around

ryandvm 1y ago
Bingo. You don't get to be a billionaire by being chill, live and let live kind of guy. You take whenever you get the chance.

wartywhoa23 1y ago

Vampires have to do with blood only tangentially. It is vital energy in a broad sense that they're after, and stomping on people's freedom and privacy is but another way to suck it out.

righthand 1y ago

The constitution just enabled “many kings” through commerce rather than answering to a single king. Now the many kings take turns rotating into the leadership roles as they own the representation (the other thing the constitution enables) and snack on other kings. And when one of the favorite many kings fail they have the representatives say “this king is too big to fail, don’t let the small kings eat him, prop him up with money from the masses”.

b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago

I doubt he sees it like that. Plenty of authoritarians think authoritarianism is best for society.

sizzzzlerz 1y ago
'long as they're the authoritarians-in-charge.
stirfish 1y ago
I genuinely think he's trying to sell more storage
- b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
  That could be true too lol

majormajor 1y ago

"Concentration of power on the scale of today's mega-companies is bad" is an idea that would've resonated with the founders of the US. But it wasn't the immediate issue they were fighting, so it's not what got written down. The greatest trick of the elites has been convincing people that the Constitution is a holy religious artifact at this point instead of a document that will still need major patches as the world changes around it. Or maybe it's encouraging holy wars over the words of the Constitution while simply ignoring it - and especially the overall suspicion of power - whenever convenient. And thus we get a world where criticism of agents of the government is treason instead of patriotic oversight; where the police don't police their own but close ranks against external complaints.

resters 1y ago

I think what a lot of people don’t realize is that the nuisance that a middle class person might feel from an urban tent city or a rat infestation is quite similar to the nuisance that an extremely wealthy person would feel from the entire middle class.

ottah 1y ago

The constitution was written by the wealthy elites of society, for the wealthy elites of society to be free of the tyranny of a monarchy. It was not created to grant equal rights to all people. I.E., see the 3/5ths personhood of enslaved people.

alexgieg 1y ago
That's a misunderstanding of the intention of that provision. Back in the day slave owners had as many "votes" as they had slaves (the slaves themselves didn't vote), under the assumption they "cared for" those slaves and were representing them. This gave them immense political power. To curb the power of slave owners the anti-slavery States managed to approve, against slave owners' interests, the rule their slaves didn't count as full votes. This way slave owners had less total votes, strengthening the abolitionist camp.
- ottah 1y ago
  I did not missunderstand anything. I said the constitution was not created to grant equal rights to all people. I think your elaboration illustrates that clearly.

Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago

> the constitution prevents America from having a king This is only true until SCOTUS invents a new interpretation of the constitution that not only allows for a king, but asserts it must have a king (provided they are republican). I mean, who is going to stop them from doing that? Really though, who?

asacrowflies 1y ago
We the people.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
  The US doesn't have a "we", it only has an "us" and "them"