It’s a paradox. The people who would use such wealth for good almost never become billionaires in the first place. It takes a significant amount of ruthlessness. No one becomes a billionaire without exploitation. And there are a select few who actually follow through on giving up their fortunes (while still alive, I consider the “giving pledge” upon death to be null and void).
Which is why taxation and regulations around worker protections and wages are so important. If we cannot trust individuals to do good things with their money then they can have a large enough pile to play with and the rest can go back into the world that carried them to their ill-gotten wealth.
I just saw a story about Woz who gave up his apple wealth to fund museums and schools. He probably would have been a billionaire if he hadn’t. But he said that he values more than just his bank account.
Relying on good people is more than meritocracy. There would be ethical considerations to fully balance the accumulation of power. So it’s even more difficult.
With the first comment, you seem to be making out as if it’s a choice we made, to have the worst of humanity rule over us.
The reality is, the worst of humanity forced themselves on us and we’ve had little to no choice over the matter. If we voted for good people and only bought from good people, the bad people would simply neutralise them.
Billionaires do NOT reflect the general population. They manipulate the general population into their preferred image which, I can agree, might look similar.
I get what you’re saying but I’m not sure the choice is as chosen (for want of a better term). People are given just enough to lose, if they try to buck the system. Almost everyone is an informant. Especially at work.
For sure, they can’t neutralise everyone but they only have the neutralise a certain amount. I’m not talking about people like you and me who refuse to question the first things we were ever told about the world.
Docile and subservient to a ruling class. I’d say, through no fault of their own, gen z has been psy-oped since they were born. They would be the best example now.
I understand and feel the same frustration that I think would lead to the conclusion you came to. I don’t think you’re stupid or crazy for thinking it. If you’re saying it in terms of “no ones coming to save us. The working class won’t rise up in glorious revolution” then i think we’re on the same chapter, if not the same page.
It’s so refreshing to have a civil disagreement with someone. Considering the state of the rest of the Internet, I always like to show any third party who might read this that the above is how it could be.
I would even disagree more. It’s not docility that prevents people from acting. People don’t act because they feel that they will be worse off in a just world.
They don’t need to, only to get enough apathetic or foolish people to do it for them. They also don’t neutralize by killing, but by making sure they never hold power or influence
It’s a paradox. The people who would use such wealth for good almost never become billionaires in the first place. It takes a significant amount of ruthlessness. No one becomes a billionaire without exploitation. And there are a select few who actually follow through on giving up their fortunes (while still alive, I consider the “giving pledge” upon death to be null and void).
Which is why taxation and regulations around worker protections and wages are so important. If we cannot trust individuals to do good things with their money then they can have a large enough pile to play with and the rest can go back into the world that carried them to their ill-gotten wealth.
I just saw a story about Woz who gave up his apple wealth to fund museums and schools. He probably would have been a billionaire if he hadn’t. But he said that he values more than just his bank account.
Exactly, great example! He could definitely have been a billionaire if he wanted to, but he’s just not that kind of person. Mad respect.
They mirror the general population. If people would make sure to buy from good people and to vote for good people, good people would be in power.
Of course people will be good if that is what is rewarded in society. But in general people just do what everybody else does.
I remember when I used to believe in the myths of meritocracy and the ftee market.
Relying on good people is more than meritocracy. There would be ethical considerations to fully balance the accumulation of power. So it’s even more difficult.
With the first comment, you seem to be making out as if it’s a choice we made, to have the worst of humanity rule over us.
The reality is, the worst of humanity forced themselves on us and we’ve had little to no choice over the matter. If we voted for good people and only bought from good people, the bad people would simply neutralise them.
Billionaires do NOT reflect the general population. They manipulate the general population into their preferred image which, I can agree, might look similar.
It’s still a choice.
The bad people cannot neutralise everybody.
I don’t fully understand the last paragraph. What is the preferred image?
I get what you’re saying but I’m not sure the choice is as chosen (for want of a better term). People are given just enough to lose, if they try to buck the system. Almost everyone is an informant. Especially at work.
For sure, they can’t neutralise everyone but they only have the neutralise a certain amount. I’m not talking about people like you and me who refuse to question the first things we were ever told about the world.
Docile and subservient to a ruling class. I’d say, through no fault of their own, gen z has been psy-oped since they were born. They would be the best example now.
I understand and feel the same frustration that I think would lead to the conclusion you came to. I don’t think you’re stupid or crazy for thinking it. If you’re saying it in terms of “no ones coming to save us. The working class won’t rise up in glorious revolution” then i think we’re on the same chapter, if not the same page.
It’s so refreshing to have a civil disagreement with someone. Considering the state of the rest of the Internet, I always like to show any third party who might read this that the above is how it could be.
What is our disagreement? The agency of people?
I would even disagree more. It’s not docility that prevents people from acting. People don’t act because they feel that they will be worse off in a just world.
They don’t need to, only to get enough apathetic or foolish people to do it for them. They also don’t neutralize by killing, but by making sure they never hold power or influence
Still strange how many people stick to following fools.
There are a few billionaires that inherited their wealth through birth or got through a divorce usually aren’t as insane.
or twice as insane!