crumbshot

14 ms·

61.
by crumbshot 6y ago
It would be done by statute. The only grounds necessary would be that Parliament is sovereign. Of course, it would need a majority in both Houses, and in practical terms would require popular approval too.
62.
by crumbshot 6y ago
> Some are bringing up points on wealth and for me that feels like it stems from envy which is also pretty ugly. This idea that criticism of wealth must be just down to envy is really quite a tired stereotype. It makes even less sense
63.
by crumbshot 6y ago
As I understand it, it is quite possible to do this within the rule of law. To avoid the monarch refusing to enact this, it would need to be done in two stages: 1. A new Royal Assent Act, that makes assent automatic upon a bill passing both
64.
by crumbshot 6y ago
Removal in what sense? Are you seeking clarification on why the monarchy should be abolished, or the benefits of imposing exile?
65.
by crumbshot 6y ago
I'm not advocating for that, if that's what you're implying. "Targeted for removal" wasn't intended as a euphemism for death squads or anything like that.
66.
by crumbshot 6y ago
It's a model of monarchical disposal that has been successfully used by Germany, Greece and Romania. Letting them stay and keep all their vast wealth would risk allowing them continued influence. Also, the birth of the United Republic
67.
by crumbshot 6y ago
Indeed, and they should all be targeted for removal. One of the key problems in many human societies is that most of the wealth and power ends up concentrated in the hands of the undeserving few, who use it to further enrich themselves and
68.
by crumbshot 6y ago
The underlying issue is that they intervened in Britain's lawmaking process for their own personal benefit. It is of course not the only reason to abolish the monarchy. Just one more for the list.
69.
by crumbshot 6y ago
If you're suggesting a purge of the wealthy upper classes whose income is mostly derived from unproductive rent-seeking, then yes, I agree. Good idea!
70.
by crumbshot 6y ago
Corruption amongst other members of the upper and ruling classes is not a good reason to avoid dealing with the most undemocratic of them all. Also, the wider principle is that there shouldn't be an untouchable hereditary ruling class
71.
by crumbshot 6y ago
Abolishing the monarchy would also obsolete the Sovereign Grant, so all the surplus income from the Crown Estate would go to the state without the royal family leeching their cut. That said, there are some Duchies that are privately owned.
72.
by crumbshot 6y ago
> I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. She used her powers to get an exemption from transparency laws with r
73.
by crumbshot 6y ago
I read it as a lament that our economies are so vulnerable to the actions of a relatively small number of large corporations. Including the idea of certain entities purportedly being 'too big to fail'. Not sure if that was the int
74.
by crumbshot 6y ago
This is far too low. A fine large enough to destroy the company (as was effectively done to Purdue) would have been the only palatable outcome. And even more importantly, legal repercussions for all their employees who were personally respo
75.
by crumbshot 6y ago
I think it is, and it's also a useful conversational marker. As soon as someone starts complaining about "woke" and "SJWs" and "cancel culture" and so on, I know I can just switch off and disengage, as any
76.
by crumbshot 6y ago
Their suggestion of creating a brand new competing social media network is not a realistic solution to Facebook treating its workers badly. Your suggestion of just creating some AI to do all the work is similarly unrealistic.
77.
by crumbshot 6y ago
> What your scenario changes is that the labor supply gets to be much more selective about the job they take. Indeed, that's the point: to move away from the current system of the wealthy coercing and exploiting the not-wealthy.
78.
by crumbshot 6y ago
> If you want mods to earn more create a social network and pay them more. This is an entirely unrealistic and unhelpful suggestion.
79.
by crumbshot 6y ago
No that just ends up redirecting your browser to google.com with the search query, it's equivalent to going there and typing it in yourself. Which if you were to give up Google Search, is something you wouldn't be doing (or would
80.
by crumbshot 6y ago
> Google Search (including via DDG) DuckDuckGo doesn't use Google Search, so you'd be okay there.
81.
by crumbshot 6y ago
But if both Apple and Google remove your app from their stores, at least Android has a fairly straightforward method for your users to install it straight from your website. For iOS your users will have to sign it themselves (but still via
82.
by crumbshot 6y ago
On Android, it's still much easier to install apps from outside Google's app store (just change the "install unknown apps" setting, download the .apk file, and open it) than it is on iOS.
83.
by crumbshot 6y ago
> At that level of wealth, most of the money doesn't actually exist. It just represents control. I agree, and that's part of the problem as well. But also, to use your example of Bezos, he cashes out a few billion dollars of
84.
by crumbshot 6y ago
I don't think that was the main thrust of their comment, which comes across as mostly a selfish appraisal of a perceived risk to their riches ("only be worrying about who's about to take it from you or whether your assets are
85.
by crumbshot 6y ago
Interesting, but also disgusting. No-one should be a billionaire. Having that much wealth and power concentrated in the hands of such a few is a societal sickness. They're effectively stealing a disproportionate amount of our world&#x2
86.
by crumbshot 6y ago
> Now, you can be making a couple million a year and only be worrying about who's about to take it from you or whether your assets are going to be worthless in the next financial crash. Are you being serious? If you're lucky
87.
by crumbshot 6y ago
The climate catatrosphe that looms upon us all has been caused by individuals and organisations using resources as they wish. What we've ended up with is a planetwide tragedy of the commons - and free markets aren't going to solve
88.
by crumbshot 6y ago
This is a decent, well-cited article on the subject: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local It summarises the differences in global greenhouse emissions between various types of food, and the contributions o
89.
by crumbshot 6y ago
You provide a good example of this sort of rationalisation: the benefit to the individual is highlighted, the collective harm is ignored.
90.
by crumbshot 6y ago
Probably the same way most people rationalize consuming the flesh of slaughtered animals, despite the massive negative environmental impact that has, and the better alternatives that are available.

More ›