Is being a Billionaire / High Millionare Immoral
- Thread starter Maneil99
- Start date
People should need to see how wrong it is for a single person to have a billion in our world
Lets change to a different exemple:
1 million seconds equals less than 12 days; 1 billion seconds is almost 32 years.
No matter how pure is your billionaire heart and intentions, you would have too much
Lets change to a different exemple:
1 million seconds equals less than 12 days; 1 billion seconds is almost 32 years.
No matter how pure is your billionaire heart and intentions, you would have too much
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/10/04/gap-old-navy-and-living-hell-bangladeshi-sweatshop
The "individual rights" argument always falls flat when you consider it's the "individual right" of the billionaire in question vs the sum total of the rights of the people they exploit for their billions.
"I bet you've bought at Gap! You're no different from the billionaire!"
It's true, I've bought at Gap, but I don't set worker policy at Gap nor do I set its production goals or how it expands nor do I manage its production chain. I have very little input in what goes on in those factories. On the other hand, Art Peck, current CEO of Gap, gets to basically decide all of this. The irony here is Peck doesn't even seem to be a billionaire.
That’s not how I interpret the question. If that’s the point of the poll then I think It’s fundamentally flawed in how it’s set up.
Clearly there are huge flaws in America’s economy. A lot of multimillionaires and probably most billionaires have done something sketchy or immoral to achieve their wealth, but I certainly don’t assume every person worth 250+ million has done some immoral to get that. Hell consider sports athletes, plenty of them are reasonably okay people and in getting their wealth a lot of them didn’t do anything immoral to get it.
There is a difference between a system being flawed, and labeling the people who accumulate wealth in that flawed system even if they are very charitable, and to do so seems...I’ll say misguided.
Just consider somebody who develops a piece of software, and through selling it or something they become incredibly wealthy. In what reasonable scenario is that immoral? It’s not.
You can both think that billionaires are hard workers with good ideas who earn success AND think they're over-compensated by a system that allows them to avoid tax/exploit their work force.
I voted yes, but with a couple of caveats. I would say socially immoral, since it is a position of excess especially a billionaire relative to the fact that many are struggling. I don't think it is necessarily an indictment of the individual as it is a corrupted position with the socio economic system. Nobody in anyway deserves to be a thousand times richer than anyone else, despite what our current dogma's might convince you.
The difference is that Jeff Bezos snaps with his finger and ten thousand people lose their jobs, or congressmen change laws. If you snap your finger you get annoying looks from the people around you.
Wealth = power, its that easy. Nobody should have more power than someone else. Nobody.
It's easy how it should be. You have a good idea, like say the polio vaccine? Good, you give it to society for the benefit of all. That's it. Done. No billions of dollars, no yachts, no sports cars, nothing. Does that mean that Facebook or Apple never would have existed? Fine, we could do without. Most good things were developed at government institutions like universities or NASA anyway.
Yes, the poll question isn't perfect. I actually voted "Depends". I understand the sentiment behind the "yes" votes though.
Of the examples I can think of, notch best fits the scenario. Notch is immoral for other reasons than his wealth though.
McAfee is another example, and IIRC he isnt a nice person (but I might be wrong)
Having wealth isn't immoral unless the way you got it was literally by robbing others, which granted some are, but not everyone.
I do think a system that allows such an extreme disparity between the haves and the have nots is immoral but that's on the system not the individual within the system.
I do think anyone of extraordinary means that uses their immense wealth to influence the system so that they can have more wealth at the expense of others to be highly immoral. It's one thing to be super rich and just live how you please within the current system, it's a totally different situation when you start using that money to buy politicians and shit to further rig the system to your favor.
I do think a system that allows such an extreme disparity between the haves and the have nots is immoral but that's on the system not the individual within the system.
I do think anyone of extraordinary means that uses their immense wealth to influence the system so that they can have more wealth at the expense of others to be highly immoral. It's one thing to be super rich and just live how you please within the current system, it's a totally different situation when you start using that money to buy politicians and shit to further rig the system to your favor.
He says some people as you use the richest person in the world as your example. Brilliant.
Most reasonable post that does not agree or disagree completely.
Isn't tax breaks asked because these companies fill a vital function in society? Anyway, it's only in effect after they prove themselves vital - meaning they are a valuable actor in the marketplace - so much so that government funding seems necessary in keeping it afloat.
Remember, there isn't any pure capitalism practiced anywhere; we have a "mixed" economic system in every developed country. "Mixed" meaning that governmental control dictates every economic exchange and takes a bite whether you like it or not - in exchange for democracy (in essence (and wholly simplified)).
Thereof wealth ain't predicated upon tax breaks, on the contrary - tax breaks is granted to those who fill vital positions in a nations economy.
How can you have individual sovereignty without enforcing individual rights? How can you enforce individual rights without enforcing the economic structure of capitalism? How can one propose individual freedoms and at the the same time oppose "non control"?
There's undeniable loads of social barriers's, social injustices an hardships present everywhere. That's our role, to vote and fight for the misaligned by history - not to deviate from our individual rights - but bringing them to the world population as a whole.
John McAffee is someone you'd think would be a character on South Park, not a real person.
https://www.wired.com/2012/12/ff-john-mcafees-last-stand/
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...th-salts-belize-murder-fugitive-gregory-faull
Is sitting at a table full of food while surrounded by starving people you won't let eat immoral?
But I thought being successful and wealthy was about being self made and stuff. Or at least a lot of peoole here say that. Why do they need the government's assistance?
OP
OP
I'll keep this in mind when we're seizing billionaire wealth.
"But my property rights!"
"Life's unfair, just ask ERA."
Of course there's a dark side to capitalism; or rather it brings dark sides of humanity to light. And that's a good thing.
What's is the alternative? Shutting it all down? Abandon individual rights?
Is the apparent horror of it all worth abandoning individual rights?
Of course not!
----
How about we tax individual aggregate wealth above 10 million at 99% and redistribute it to the needy?
Do i need a roof over my head? Yes
Do i need to have a gold roof over my head encrusted in diamonds designed by some hotshot architect? No
Do i need a car? Yes
Do i need to have a platinum plated car with expensive leather and bespoke sound system? No
Mine is a simple point. If you have money to cover the bare essentials for a comfortable life then there should be no problem. But when you start to spend on rediculous shit i just mentioned above then you're fucking wasting it.
I'd roll up in a nice BMW and donate/sponsor the rest of my money to create basic services in areas that lack basic services. Spending millions to have a unique house, car etc adorned with rare meterials will always and forever be a collosal waste of money.
Sadly people just don't care about one another so these billionares will forever be douchebags of the highest order in my eyes. I'd be happy to live off a million dollars a year. That is a life that would be comfy enough for me. Any more than that and you have the right to call me a selfish prick.
Do i need to have a gold roof over my head encrusted in diamonds designed by some hotshot architect? No
Do i need a car? Yes
Do i need to have a platinum plated car with expensive leather and bespoke sound system? No
Mine is a simple point. If you have money to cover the bare essentials for a comfortable life then there should be no problem. But when you start to spend on rediculous shit i just mentioned above then you're fucking wasting it.
I'd roll up in a nice BMW and donate/sponsor the rest of my money to create basic services in areas that lack basic services. Spending millions to have a unique house, car etc adorned with rare meterials will always and forever be a collosal waste of money.
Sadly people just don't care about one another so these billionares will forever be douchebags of the highest order in my eyes. I'd be happy to live off a million dollars a year. That is a life that would be comfy enough for me. Any more than that and you have the right to call me a selfish prick.
There's an entire field of Anarchism theory you can read if you are actually interested in answers to your questions; and it isn't advocating for like, a batman villain pop conception of Anarchism.
The system isn't broken, it's working as intended, and that's the problem.
I am aware of anarchism in its' generals (no one knows how it works in actuality!).
But how would you respond to my (in effect rhetorical) questions?
Bezos is actually worth double of what I wrote, fwiw. And the discussion is about the obscenely wealthy, if your issue is that you want to split hairs on degrees of obscenity then I'm not all that interested. My point also still stands with anyone making hundreds of millions or more. Last point, the existence and tacit acceptance people have of all the "lesser billionaires" lets people like Bezos launder a sense of just deserts through our current economic system.
Not going to because I'm not an anarchist nor do I find the discussion terribly interesting or particularly on topic enough to be worth the navel gazing.
Last edited:
Communism, Socialism, and capitalism aren't forms of government. View them as social relations between things. Essentially:
Capitalism: "I made this thing, and the owner of the factory keeps it."
Socialism: "I made this thing and I keep it."
Communism: "I made this thing and the person who needs it gets it."
They're ideologies of how we make and distribute things, which is essentially how we socialise with each other. As for government, theoretically we wouldn't need a government if we were to apply communism, whereas look at how much government and violent police intervention is needed to stop a homeless person living in an empty house or eating food on a shop shelf.
What, no!
Capitalism is Libertarian ideology in effect in the marketplace.
Socialism is governmental authoritarian control in the marketplace.
Communism negates any marketplace to take place at all - and forcibly take control of any commercial enterprise and negates individual rights altogether.
It's so much more nuanced and intricate than you portray (and what I portray!). It's ideologies portraying differing ideas of the worth of human life.
You're not correct in any sense!
It's more what that amount of money does to people. People are so disgustingly weak when it comes to money.
It's all so obscene. That desire to have more and more all just because you think you're entitled to it. It's disgusting to behold.
We're still trapped in that idiotic thought that becoming rich is the highest goal we can reach. THEN we'll be happy.
That 1200-dollar-golden-steak restaurant in Dubai for instance. The way the cook acts is so disgusting (to the point where watching him almost makes me vomit with actual disgust). And then the people who eat that...... It's so laughably ridiculous.
Being filthy rich doesn't seem fun to me.
It's all so obscene. That desire to have more and more all just because you think you're entitled to it. It's disgusting to behold.
We're still trapped in that idiotic thought that becoming rich is the highest goal we can reach. THEN we'll be happy.
That 1200-dollar-golden-steak restaurant in Dubai for instance. The way the cook acts is so disgusting (to the point where watching him almost makes me vomit with actual disgust). And then the people who eat that...... It's so laughably ridiculous.
Being filthy rich doesn't seem fun to me.
Individual rights to what? My definition is overly simplistic, I didn't say it wasn't, but other definitions like thinking communism is a government leads to implied ideas of what "individual rights" are or that a marketplace naturally occurs in all forms of society.
Communism isn't simply a form of economics, it's a political doctrine, as well. It would naturally impact individual rights like capitalism does.
I kinda feel like a lot of people in this thread don't really get the "money = power" line of thinking and instead just think "oh so he can buy a lot of cars, so what?" instead of "oh, so he can buy a lot of congressmen and influence how everyone in a country lives their lives"
I think people get it, the problem with that is the question wasn't do you think insanely rich people who buy politicians locally and nationally to influence politics for their own personal gain are immoral it was is being insanely wealthy in itself immoral. If you literally have all your money in a bank, never try to influence anything and pay your people well you're not exactly a good poster child for evil rich person, though you probably aren't going to be Sainted either but, eh, who among us is? If you're the Koch's or some shit, well, yeah, you're intentionally immoral shitheads. And you can be in the middle like the Gate's and try and do good but do some from an inflated sense of standing on the topic that comes from obscene wealth that ends up being bad on accident or just inefficient compared to just paying more taxes and letting that money work for your pet projects the right way instead of thinking you can do better outside the system because you're so smart and rich, but I wouldn't call that immoral because it comes from a good place.
Don't get me wrong, I do think the system needs to change and the mega wealthy do have an overly outsized influence on the country that needs to end but what I think a lot of people really need to take in is that not all rich people must be your enemy even if the policies you wish to pass are going to effect them the most. Some people who made bank will happily move on to making a little less bank without a fight if that's where society goes. There's little incentive for just a nice rich person to donate all his money to the government out of principle without changing the underlying system in place, so while you can bemoan all you want a well meaning rich person who isn't writing a giant check to the treasury just this instant think about what him or her doing so would really accomplish, it'd probably just go to Trump's wall because Congress ain't funding shit at the levels they should and are still running a fucking defecit and then he'd be tapped out, with society not tapping all the rich people this guy, girl or family will have knocked themselves down financially to accomplish jack shit while their ex-peers continue raking in money and influencing the system for their gain further. Change the reality on the ground so that these people can be your ally while properly continuing to vilify those that truly deserve it.
It's a belief system that is reified by institutions, those same institutions that define what is and isn't individual rights.
I advocate more for socialism at the moment because my understanding of communism is very lacking.
But sure. What's your point?
Eh, not really. The "left" vs "right" thing we have as an (inadequate) political scale measures a lot of ideological attitudes. A most significant difference is (though) that of "negative" counter "positive" rights.
Negative rights entails everything you are and can do - without infringing on another rights to do the same (in (liberal?) political philosophy - Individual rights) .
Positive rights enables you to take "advantage"(lack of a better word) of people around you; this is where the "socialism" part come into play.
Given that there's currently always "positive rights" in a developed country means we have mixed an economy due to governmental infraction in the marketplace. Which is great in several ways (I live in Sweden and can attest to that)!
Communism however isn't just a change of government structure; it's also enforcing a political dogma that negates Negative (individual) rights whatsoever. There's not much of a marketplace at all given how the commander in chief "owns" everything.
You, as an individual, is just a cog in whatever socioeconomic machine the authorities find valuable.
I'm talking in extremes, but that's how it is (in broad strokes) philosophically entangled.
----------------
"Individual rights to what?"
That's the beauty of it; individual rights (negative rights) doesn't entail a right "to" anything - other than the rights to oneself.
-----------