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

[Jack D Ripper]

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.

It worked for the French. Granted, they may have to do it again from time to time, but it did greatly improve the lot of the poor.

As the old saying goes, you cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

[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.

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.

True it would have been better if Reagan hadn't given away the farm in the 80's. But given where things are now, it is going to take a multipronged approach, of which upping the income tax brackets is only one part.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm not in favor of structuring things around a traditional monetary system.

In the alternate system I'd institute, we could have the equivalent of a billionaire, but someone would only be able to get to that point via making other persons' lives far better (in those persons' assessments), much easier, so that they have few worries, access to everything they need access to, lots of leisure time & activities, etc. They're "billionaire"-type status would be a reward for ingeniously figuring out how to make life so much easier/carefree for everyone else.

[Terrapin Station]

Oops with the "they're" typo

[Ecurb]

True it would have been better if Reagan hadn't given away the farm in the 80's. But given where things are now, it is going to take a multipronged approach, of which upping the income tax brackets is only one part.

Rich people are often quite clever, or, at least, can hire clever people to work for them. They figure out how to game the system. Every 50 years ago, we need a shake-up. It's happened in the U.S.: The trust-busting of the 1900s, the New Deal, then the "Great Society" graduated income tas of the '60s and '70s. Now it's been 40 or 50 years since the last shake-up, and we could use another one. Eventually, the rich people will figure that one out, too. But it might take them a while.

With regard to Terrapin's comment: In the U.S. the working class tends to despise executives, but not entrepeneurs. They are grateful to the owners who employ them. These owners are also feted in Capitalist mythology. Executives, on the other hand, are seen as fellow wage earners getting more than their fair share of the pie. The media rants about executives making tens of millions a year, but the actual billionaires (who are generally owners) are feted as producing jobs and moving the economy forward. The reality, of course, is that the executives drive the company forward -- but the workers don't see it. They overvalue their own positions, undervalue executive positions, and feel grateful to the owners.

[Pattern-chaser]

In the U.S. the working class [...] are grateful to the owners who employ them. These owners are also feted in Capitalist mythology.

Isn't that a potted description of why and how American Predatory Libertarian Unconstrained-Capitalism is destroying our world, and everything in it?

[evolution]

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.

If you REALLY believe that the 'problem' with the super wealthy does not come from how they achieve their money, then WHY would there be ANY issue with 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.

Or, state enforced equality of 'wealth'. It all depends on how you want to LOOK AT this.

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.

Find out how and why 'you' have given "them" power, then 'you' could prevent "them" from having power, and thus there would not be anything to 'check'.

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.

What is the actual 'problem', which you are proposing a 'solution' to and for here?

If people are not using their power to take money from you, then what other 'power' could they have over you?

If the 'problem' does not come from wealthier human beings using their power to achieve more money, then power of 'what' exactly do you have an issue/problem with?

[evolution]

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.

And that 'system', which is 'inbuilt', is in 'you' giving "them" power.

The, so called, 'inbuilt problem' is WHY do 'you' judge, idolize, and ridicule yourselves (your 'self' and "each other")?

Find or learn the, very simple, answer to this question, then you will have the solution to this, seemingly, 'inbuilt problem'.

In democracies this means we have to be persuaded that this is is best system, via culture, media education etc.

If one has to be 'persuaded' of some system, then it is NOT the 'best system'.

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.

[evolution]

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?

For 'me', before money and greed came into existence.

But, then again, I would NOT KNOW of the destruction and downfall that the love of money AND greed actually causes, nor would I NOT KNOW of just how Truly SIMPLE and EASY it is to rid the 'world' of these things REALLY IS, and which will create the ever-lasting peace, in harmony, that is about to come.

Is all this prosperity sustainable?

Is destroying the one and only home that one lives in and actually NEEDS really 'prosperity'?

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.

[baker]

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.

Who is "we"?

The wealthy are powerful enough to minimize any effect that those with less power could have on the power of the wealthy. So who exactly is going to stand up against the wealthy? Who can do so successfully?

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.

It seems that the core factor has always been power, not wealth. The two tend to go together, of course, but not necessarily. For example, all over the world, religious institutions have always tended to have a lot of power, but not necessarily wealth.

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.

Why should the rich be moral (in an ordinary sense of the word, meaning that they wouldn't lie, steal, etc.)?
I think if you can answer this, the rest should be easy to figure out.

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.

But how do you propose to accomplish that?

[baker]

If the 'problem' does not come from wealthier human beings using their power to achieve more money, then power of 'what' exactly do you have an issue/problem with?

The power to get away with murder, metaphorically and literally.

[HJCarden]

If you REALLY believe that the 'problem' with the super wealthy does not come from how they achieve their money, then WHY would there be ANY issue with the power that wealth creates?

I believe that it is uncontroversial that bad things can come out of good things. I believe that this is one such scenario, in which this wealth creation has lead to people having power that private citizens should not enjoy.

Find out how and why 'you' have given "them" power, then 'you' could prevent "them" from having power, and thus there would not be anything to 'check'.

They have gained power through capitalism. I do not believe in destroying capitalism. Not trying to entirely prevent them from having power related to their wealth, just want to be able to quantify and limit.

What is the actual 'problem', which you are proposing a 'solution' to and for here?

If people are not using their power to take money from you, then what other 'power' could they have over you?

If the 'problem' does not come from wealthier human beings using their power to achieve more money, then power of 'what' exactly do you have an issue/problem with?

The actual problem is as stated above, money has been accumulated to the point that I feel unfair power is being given to unelected officials. There are many ways power can be exerted over me in ways other than taking my fairly earned pay. Consider political campaign donations. Consider control of media outlets. The list goes on and on. I believe that there is nothing wrong with private citizens having control over things like these, but rather my issue occurs when a select few private citizens are able to consolidate their control and gain too much power.

[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.

Who is "we"?

"We" is the citizens of any society in which the ultra wealthy are allowed to accumulate the aforementioned mass of wealth.

The wealthy are powerful enough to minimize any effect that those with less power could have on the power of the wealthy. So who exactly is going to stand up against the wealthy? Who can do so successfully?

The governmental institutions that we already have in place, I believe, are the best method for remedying this situaiton.

Why should the rich be moral (in an ordinary sense of the word, meaning that they wouldn't lie, steal, etc.)?
I think if you can answer this, the rest should be easy to figure out.

The rich have no obligation to be moral, their only obligation I believe is to follow the laws. The aim is to find methods to legally and efficiently limit their power.

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.

But how do you propose to accomplish that?

That is precisely why I started this thread, to find a solution.

[Robert66]

The big question to ask of any billionaire is this: are they growing the pie, or have they just found a way to get themself a bigger slice? If they are growing the pie then no problem. If they are getting a bigger slice then how? The laws allow it? Change the laws. By exploiting others (eg in other countries)? Guillotine

[evolution]

If the 'problem' does not come from wealthier human beings using their power to achieve more money, then power of 'what' exactly do you have an issue/problem with?

The power to get away with murder, metaphorically and literally.

Thanks for clarifying.

And this is not directed to you, But is it really of no concern at all then to "hjcarden" how the, so called, "super wealthy" human beings obtain their money, which is what actually gives these people their wealth, and thus then their power, to use money, to get away with murdering other human beings?

Maybe if 'the way' the, so called, "super wealthy" obtained their excessive amount of money was seen as a 'problem', then we could, and thus would, solve the 'problem', and STOP the power being given to a few individuals.