Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[HJCarden]

Lots of discussion has arisen recently in regards to the ethics of the super wealthy, i.e. should we allow billionaires to exist, and I have seen much conversation as to whether it is ethical for anyone to have that much money.

For me, the problem with the super wealthy does not come from how they achieve their money. There will always be problems of exploitation, and the emergence of the ultra rich in the 21st century does not mean to me that more people are being exploited, just that globalism has opened up the route for this wealth.

Rather, I take issue with the fact that through capitalism, these people have become ultra wealthy to the point where they wield significant power, political, economic, social and all the like. And this has been the issue with the ultra wealthy historically, the trust busters and so on back in American history, the issue arrises not out of a certain level of wealth, but the power that wealth creates.

So my main thrust against the argument that billionaires should not exist is that it is arbitrary to ascribe a level of wealth that should not be achievable, and this is just a slippery slope into state enforced equality of poverty. My counter is that something needs to be done to keep the powerful in check, as we use treaties to ensure peace between nations, the problem of billionaires is how to check their power.

My parameters for a solution are as follows:
Cannot be done by simply reducing their wealth
Cannot lead to "well if we take away billionaires, we shouldn't have millionaires either"
Cannot infringe on the personal right to the pursuit of happiness

Interested to hear anyone's ideas, critiques on my ideas and the parameters set forth.

[Gertie]

Lots of discussion has arisen recently in regards to the ethics of the super wealthy, i.e. should we allow billionaires to exist, and I have seen much conversation as to whether it is ethical for anyone to have that much money.

For me, the problem with the super wealthy does not come from how they achieve their money. There will always be problems of exploitation, and the emergence of the ultra rich in the 21st century does not mean to me that more people are being exploited, just that globalism has opened up the route for this wealth.

Rather, I take issue with the fact that through capitalism, these people have become ultra wealthy to the point where they wield significant power, political, economic, social and all the like. And this has been the issue with the ultra wealthy historically, the trust busters and so on back in American history, the issue arrises not out of a certain level of wealth, but the power that wealth creates.

So my main thrust against the argument that billionaires should not exist is that it is arbitrary to ascribe a level of wealth that should not be achievable, and this is just a slippery slope into state enforced equality of poverty. My counter is that something needs to be done to keep the powerful in check, as we use treaties to ensure peace between nations, the problem of billionaires is how to check their power.

My parameters for a solution are as follows:
Cannot be done by simply reducing their wealth
Cannot lead to "well if we take away billionaires, we shouldn't have millionaires either"
Cannot infringe on the personal right to the pursuit of happiness

Interested to hear anyone's ideas, critiques on my ideas and the parameters set forth.

Pretty much agree with your points.

Seems to me it's a systemic issue, in that a system which results so much inequality that it gives a minority of individuals disproportionate power to maintain that system, we have an inbuilt problem.

In democracies this means we have to be persuaded that this is is best system, via culture, media education etc. Not as some conspiracy, just an alignment of interests which dominate public discourse and become accepted norms.

So the challenge is how does a Sanders (or Corbyn in the UK) get elected, to go about making systemic change? I'd suggest that in those two cases it's the centrists and some parts of the Left which colluded with the powerful interests which their election would have challenged. Either by having accepted the norms we're fed, or being too timid about the chance of change.

The Right has shown that by being bold they can take power, and the Left as usual will be left to pick up the pieces from the wreckage, and try to re-establish a status quo which originally drove disaffected people to vote for change.

It's a mugs' game of damage limitation the Left has settled for. After the failure of Sanders in America and Corbyn in Europe, it will be a long time before we get another chance for anything better.

[Ecurb]

It is true, of course, that billionaires wield power. But it seems to me that we tend to exaggerate our own problems. Do the rich in the modern West wield more power today than they did in ancient Egypt, or Rome, or Medieval Europe, or Enlightenment Europe? I doubt it. The rise of democracy has limited their power -- although they still control things more than Joe Schmoe does.

In addition, we should recognize that huge strides forward in terms of human well being have arisen with the rise of Capitalism (i.e. in th last 200 years or so). Correlation is not causation, but there might be some connection between increases in average wealth, improved conditions even for the poor, and the leaps forward in infrastructure, health care, and general well-being that we have seen. Indeed, these improvements seem to have stagnated in countries that limited capitalist enterprise.

It may well be that the main reasons for improved living conditions are only tangential to capitalism: human longevity has doubled, but medical care, immunizations, samitation, more plentiful food, and safer water might have been introduced without capitalist vigor. Still, looking back on human history it seems strange to complain TOO much; when would any of us rather have lived?

Is all this prosperity sustainable? Who knows (least of all me). Can we tax billionaires more aggressively? Of course. Cn we regulate capitalist enterprises to protect the environment? I don't know if we can, but we should. Should we throw out the baby with the bath water? Maybe not.

[Jack D Ripper]

The French showed the way long ago. Introduce them to Madam Guillotine.

[LuckyR]

Two issues: the government doesn't have enough money to do stuff like bridge upkeep, airport renovations and high-speed train construction. Secondly, the highest income tax bracket was 70% in 1981 and 91% in 1963 and it's 37% now. Do the math.

[Steve3007]

Rather, I take issue with the fact that through capitalism, these people have become ultra wealthy to the point where they wield significant power, political, economic, social and all the like.

I agree that if extreme wealth is a problem then it is mainly a problem of the power that it confers, although I note Ecurb's point that their power is no greater, and probably less, than that of the leaders of the past. It seems to me that one of the most useful commodities that this wealth buys is better access to the machinery of the law. So how about this for a start: make private law firms illegal. Make hiring a lawyer to make one's case in court as strange seeming as buying off the judge and jury. Compel everybody, regardless of wealth, to use court appointed lawyers, and pay those lawyers from general taxation.

I'm just spit-balling here. Shoot me down in flames if it sounds mad.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Democracy, specifically "one person, one vote", is how control is politically managed. The vote of the poor person carries the same weight as that of the rich. That is how Biden was able to defeat Trump.

But it was a close race. Because Trump was able to manipulate many people with conspiracy theories. He came to power by capitalizing on our own racism by spreading doubt about where Obama was born. Fact checkers let us know that he lied routinely, but too many people were not reading fact checkers, but were tuned in instead to others who earned their living telling interesting and colorful lies. And news agencies willing to spread those lies were owned by billionaires willing to manipulate people.

The scary thing is that Trump won more votes than any other U.S. candidate ever had before. Except for Joe Biden.

[HJCarden]

Pretty much agree with your points.

Seems to me it's a systemic issue, in that a system which results so much inequality that it gives a minority of individuals disproportionate power to maintain that system, we have an inbuilt problem.

In democracies this means we have to be persuaded that this is is best system, via culture, media education etc. Not as some conspiracy, just an alignment of interests which dominate public discourse and become accepted norms.

So the challenge is how does a Sanders (or Corbyn in the UK) get elected, to go about making systemic change? I'd suggest that in those two cases it's the centrists and some parts of the Left which colluded with the powerful interests which their election would have challenged. Either by having accepted the norms we're fed, or being too timid about the chance of change.

The Right has shown that by being bold they can take power, and the Left as usual will be left to pick up the pieces from the wreckage, and try to re-establish a status quo which originally drove disaffected people to vote for change.

It's a mugs' game of damage limitation the Left has settled for. After the failure of Sanders in America and Corbyn in Europe, it will be a long time before we get another chance for anything better.

As for the ideology of Sanders, his solutions are the exact opposite of what I think would be the correct way to solve the problem. Theres the "always run out of other people's money problem" which while not perfect does allude to a real worry with simply raising taxes, in that eventually people will find a way to not pay them. We've seen this with all forms of tax except those taken by force. Rather, I think the right solution lies in establishing some sort of governing body to oversee special cases of wealth. Take Jeff Bezos for example. his actions as a private citizen have been so successful that I believe it is fair to ask him to sacrifice some of his rights as a private citizen in order to ensure that his wealth cannot be used against the common good. Not that this wealth all must be distributed for the good of the populace, but I believe it needs to be guaranteed that these ultra wealthy are limited in the harm they can do.

[HJCarden]

It is true, of course, that billionaires wield power. But it seems to me that we tend to exaggerate our own problems. Do the rich in the modern West wield more power today than they did in ancient Egypt, or Rome, or Medieval Europe, or Enlightenment Europe? I doubt it. The rise of democracy has limited their power -- although they still control things more than Joe Schmoe does.

In addition, we should recognize that huge strides forward in terms of human well being have arisen with the rise of Capitalism (i.e. in th last 200 years or so). Correlation is not causation, but there might be some connection between increases in average wealth, improved conditions even for the poor, and the leaps forward in infrastructure, health care, and general well-being that we have seen. Indeed, these improvements seem to have stagnated in countries that limited capitalist enterprise.

It may well be that the main reasons for improved living conditions are only tangential to capitalism: human longevity has doubled, but medical care, immunizations, samitation, more plentiful food, and safer water might have been introduced without capitalist vigor. Still, looking back on human history it seems strange to complain TOO much; when would any of us rather have lived?

Is all this prosperity sustainable? Who knows (least of all me). Can we tax billionaires more aggressively? Of course. Cn we regulate capitalist enterprises to protect the environment? I don't know if we can, but we should. Should we throw out the baby with the bath water? Maybe not.

Generally agree with what you're saying, I believe that the story of human history sides with free enterprise, and that our future can be secured through the same means. "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" is one of my favorite cautionary phrases, as there is often times a baby in bathwater that revolutionary political discourse refuses to consider. Great change can create great things, but measured change creates sustainable, long term positive results.

[HJCarden]

The French showed the way long ago. Introduce them to Madam Guillotine.

Personally against killing people because they hold power, cutting off the head does nothing to the body in the case of this beast.

[HJCarden]

Two issues: the government doesn't have enough money to do stuff like bridge upkeep, airport renovations and high-speed train construction. Secondly, the highest income tax bracket was 70% in 1981 and 91% in 1963 and it's 37% now. Do the math.

Yes, did the math. But do you believe that simply taxing the wealth out of these ultra rich will solve this problem? The rich have always been pretty crafty in terms of shielding their money. I believe that a different approach is required.

[HJCarden]

Rather, I take issue with the fact that through capitalism, these people have become ultra wealthy to the point where they wield significant power, political, economic, social and all the like.

I agree that if extreme wealth is a problem then it is mainly a problem of the power that it confers, although I note Ecurb's point that their power is no greater, and probably less, than that of the leaders of the past. It seems to me that one of the most useful commodities that this wealth buys is better access to the machinery of the law. So how about this for a start: make private law firms illegal. Make hiring a lawyer to make one's case in court as strange seeming as buying off the judge and jury. Compel everybody, regardless of wealth, to use court appointed lawyers, and pay those lawyers from general taxation.

I'm just spit-balling here. Shoot me down in flames if it sounds mad.

This doesn't sound mad at all, I think that idea has a lot of merit. I have little to no knowledge of law, so I'm unsure of the ramifications of this, but it does get at the idea of removing a level of power from these people. Like I said, I do not believe taxation is the route, so other ways to keep this group of people in check are where I think we should look.

[HJCarden]

Democracy, specifically "one person, one vote", is how control is politically managed. The vote of the poor person carries the same weight as that of the rich. That is how Biden was able to defeat Trump.

But it was a close race. Because Trump was able to manipulate many people with conspiracy theories. He came to power by capitalizing on our own racism by spreading doubt about where Obama was born. Fact checkers let us know that he lied routinely, but too many people were not reading fact checkers, but were tuned in instead to others who earned their living telling interesting and colorful lies. And news agencies willing to spread those lies were owned by billionaires willing to manipulate people.

The scary thing is that Trump won more votes than any other U.S. candidate ever had before. Except for Joe Biden.

Many questions about this post, but to sidestepp the exact political discourse, I believe that democracy has so far shown that it is incapable of limiting these people's power to a satisftying degree. Sure, my vote is just as valuable as anyone else's, but my total expendable income is nowhere near that of say George Soros or the Koch brothers. Unless we want to vote individually on every single law we must have a representative democracy, and this is where the ultra rich, big tech, the media can exert their influence unfairly in my opinion.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Lots of discussion has arisen recently in regards to the ethics of the super wealthy, i.e. should we allow billionaires to exist, and I have seen much conversation as to whether it is ethical for anyone to have that much money.

For me, the problem with the super wealthy does not come from how they achieve their money. There will always be problems of exploitation, and the emergence of the ultra rich in the 21st century does not mean to me that more people are being exploited, just that globalism has opened up the route for this wealth.

Rather, I take issue with the fact that through capitalism, these people have become ultra wealthy to the point where they wield significant power, political, economic, social and all the like. And this has been the issue with the ultra wealthy historically, the trust busters and so on back in American history, the issue arrises not out of a certain level of wealth, but the power that wealth creates.

So my main thrust against the argument that billionaires should not exist is that it is arbitrary to ascribe a level of wealth that should not be achievable, and this is just a slippery slope into state enforced equality of poverty. My counter is that something needs to be done to keep the powerful in check, as we use treaties to ensure peace between nations, the problem of billionaires is how to check their power.

My parameters for a solution are as follows:
Cannot be done by simply reducing their wealth
Cannot lead to "well if we take away billionaires, we shouldn't have millionaires either"
Cannot infringe on the personal right to the pursuit of happiness

Interested to hear anyone's ideas, critiques on my ideas and the parameters set forth.

Pretty much agree with your points.

Seems to me it's a systemic issue, in that a system which results so much inequality that it gives a minority of individuals disproportionate power to maintain that system, we have an inbuilt problem.

In democracies this means we have to be persuaded that this is is best system, via culture, media education etc. Not as some conspiracy, just an alignment of interests which dominate public discourse and become accepted norms.

So the challenge is how does a Sanders (or Corbyn in the UK) get elected, to go about making systemic change? I'd suggest that in those two cases it's the centrists and some parts of the Left which colluded with the powerful interests which their election would have challenged. Either by having accepted the norms we're fed, or being too timid about the chance of change.

The Right has shown that by being bold they can take power, and the Left as usual will be left to pick up the pieces from the wreckage, and try to re-establish a status quo which originally drove disaffected people to vote for change.

It's a mugs' game of damage limitation the Left has settled for. After the failure of Sanders in America and Corbyn in Europe, it will be a long time before we get another chance for anything better.

Unfortunately, Bernie used the third rail word "socialist" and electrocuted his chances. The Left has to make the distinction between "socialism" (central ownership and control of the means of production and distribution) and "social programs" that provide insurance against legitimate risks such as unemployment, sickness, old age, etc. A prominent anti-socialist, F. A. Hayek, actually endorsed social insurance programs in chapter 9, "Security and Freedom", of his book, "The Road to Serfdom".

[Marvin_Edwards]

Democracy, specifically "one person, one vote", is how control is politically managed. The vote of the poor person carries the same weight as that of the rich. That is how Biden was able to defeat Trump.

But it was a close race. Because Trump was able to manipulate many people with conspiracy theories. He came to power by capitalizing on our own racism by spreading doubt about where Obama was born. Fact checkers let us know that he lied routinely, but too many people were not reading fact checkers, but were tuned in instead to others who earned their living telling interesting and colorful lies. And news agencies willing to spread those lies were owned by billionaires willing to manipulate people.

The scary thing is that Trump won more votes than any other U.S. candidate ever had before. Except for Joe Biden.

Many questions about this post, but to sidestepp the exact political discourse, I believe that democracy has so far shown that it is incapable of limiting these people's power to a satisftying degree. Sure, my vote is just as valuable as anyone else's, but my total expendable income is nowhere near that of say George Soros or the Koch brothers. Unless we want to vote individually on every single law we must have a representative democracy, and this is where the ultra rich, big tech, the media can exert their influence unfairly in my opinion.

Perhaps. But I noticed on the news this morning that Perdue Pharmaceuticals went bankrupt last year and was fined $5.5 billion for pushing opioids on the U. S. public. So, we can bring misconduct to account. Still, the ability to hire lobbyists to pressure legislatures is hard to overcome...unless we work together to build public interest lobbies to represent the other side. One of the biggest gaffes was the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United where I hear they decided corporations were people, and could spend money on candidates. Not sure what we'll do about that.