Its just an idea, how do you propose we prevent a dozen people from accumulating 90% of the worlds weath and becoming so powerful they can turn off our constitution and start force injecting kids with fucking death shots.
Please, I'm all fucking ears. You guys have lots of shit to say but no solution.
Soros, Rockefeller, Gates, Rothschild, Shwab. THESE EVIL MEN with their ILL GOTTEN GAINS are too powerful. And it will happen AGAIN AND AGAIN.
It's a complicated solution no doubt. A solution for which I have no viable answer to offer up myself. But, limiting wealth as you suggest is not the answer.
Why? Wealth begets power begets wealth. We dont let 300 pound men fight in the same ring against a 120 pound girl because we understand certain things just arent right.
But we force everyone to compete financially and politically against these artificially created super wealthy.
We don't allow regular citizens to own nukes because we understand the danger, I propose the danger of this much unlimited wealth is as great a danger as nukes.
Why? Your solution penalizes those individuals who are able to create wealth naturally and not "artificially" as you suggest. It goes without saying that any precedent that allows for penalizing the good because of what the bad do is very bad stuff.
Instead, why not, for example, seek to remove the condition(s) that allow for people to become artificially wealthy?
You're missing the core issue, artificial or not its incredibly dangerous having that much concentrated power in so few hands. Instead if people needed to stop accumulating wealth at say 50 million like I said, they would need to collaborate with 200 people to wield the same sort of influence as 1 Bill Gates, that removes much of the authoritarian danger.
Also like I said, you cant build a nuke in your garage because of the damage it could do to society. This is exactly the same. Your argument amounts to "it's not fair that everyone doesnt get their own nuclear power plants just because some peoples would meltdown and destroy the earth.
I feel like you fancy yourself a down on his luck future billionaire or something. This wouldn't ever effect you.
Its just an idea, how do you propose we prevent a dozen people from accumulating 90% of the worlds weath and becoming so powerful they can turn off our constitution and start force injecting kids with fucking death shots.
Please, I'm all fucking ears. You guys have lots of shit to say but no solution.
Soros, Rockefeller, Gates, Rothschild, Shwab. THESE EVIL MEN with their ILL GOTTEN GAINS are too powerful. And it will happen AGAIN AND AGAIN.
So what do we do?
Digits wouldn't matter if we actually held criminals responsible for their wrong doings. What gave you done to destroy the evil around you, anon?
That's just ignorant, poor criminals are held accountable. It is EXACTLY this absurd amount of concentrated power that insulates them from the law.
It's a complicated solution no doubt. A solution for which I have no viable answer to offer up myself. But, limiting wealth as you suggest is not the answer.
Why? Wealth begets power begets wealth. We dont let 300 pound men fight in the same ring against a 120 pound girl because we understand certain things just arent right.
But we force everyone to compete financially and politically against these artificially created super wealthy.
We don't allow regular citizens to own nukes because we understand the danger, I propose the danger of this much unlimited wealth is as great a danger as nukes.
Just look at our republic.
Why? Your solution penalizes those individuals who are able to create wealth naturally and not "artificially" as you suggest. It goes without saying that any precedent that allows for penalizing the good because of what the bad do is very bad stuff.
Instead, why not, for example, seek to remove the condition(s) that allow for people to become artificially wealthy?
You're missing the core issue, artificial or not its incredibly dangerous having that much concentrated power in so few hands. Instead if people needed to stop accumulating wealth at say 50 million like I said, they would need to collaborate with 200 people to wield the same sort of influence as 1 Bill Gates, that removes much of the authoritarian danger.
Also like I said, you cant build a nuke in your garage because of the damage it could do to society. This is exactly the same. Your argument amounts to "it's not fair that everyone doesnt get their own nuclear power plants just because some peoples would meltdown and destroy the earth.
I feel like you fancy yourself a down on his luck future billionaire or something. This wouldn't ever effect you.