CURRENT EVENTS May 22 - July 5

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 54K
  • Politics 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Paine said:
I hear you, and I think a lot of people do feel that way on a moral or spiritual level. But the reason Mamdani’s framing hits harder isn’t because it’s moral, it’s because it’s political.

The issue isn’t that billionaires don’t donate enough. It’s that a democratic society shouldn’t be dependent on whether they choose to be generous or not. That kind of wealth is power: unaccountable, unelected, and often used to block the very changes that would make life better for the rest of us.

Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan; these guys were the “new money” of their day. They got rich by crushing workers, busting unions, monopolizing entire sectors, and using private militias to break strikes. The term “robber baron” didn’t come from nowhere. They weren’t seen as noble, they were feared and hated by the public for good reason.

And while people often point to them as examples of billionaire altruism, it’s worth remembering: they gave only after violently crushing labor, extracting wealth through monopolies, and only when public backlash forced their hand. Their philanthropy was PR, not virtue.

A system that allows a handful of people to hoard more money than they could spend in a hundred lifetimes, while millions struggle to pay rent or get healthcare, is a broken system. The point isn’t to make billionaires feel guilty. It’s to rewrite the rules so that kind of hoarding isn’t possible in the first place.That’s not codifying a personal belief. That’s building a fairer society.

Even the “good” billionaire has power no one voted for, wealth no one person could earn, and control over resources that should belong to the public. That’s not a feel-good story, it’s the problem.
Click to expand...
I consider myself a history geek and yet found myself learning a ton from this post. Thanks a ton, man! This was a great read.
 
Paine said:
The point isn’t to make billionaires feel guilty. It’s to rewrite the rules so that kind of hoarding isn’t possible in the first place.That’s not codifying a personal belief. That’s building a fairer society.
Click to expand...
The idea that building a fairer society is more important than having a system that allows for billionaires is a personal belief. Implementing the means to achieve the former at the expense of the latter is absolutely codifying a personal belief. And I'm not saying that's not my belief as well or that it's not a "good" belief to have or that you could provide "good reasons" why such a belief is worthy and justified, but don't delude yourself that the notion that the world you envision would the best world (or at least better than the current one, or even just simply a good one) is not a personal belief or that people whose personal beliefs are at odds with yours might not also have good grounds and good reasons for feeling like their personal beliefs of how the world should be are just as valid and "right" as yours. Finally, their personal beliefs might not be at odds with yours on many points, regardless of the size of their bank accounts...
 
Regarding billionaires, Pavel D the founder of Telegram is worth 14 or 17 billion, recently said he'd divy up his wealth across his 6 kids (with three women he's been in relationships with) AND his 100 donor-conceived children!

Reddit was doing the math and each kid, even those he'd never met, would get $150,943,396.

And to further express just how frickin much money we're talking about here, if each of his 106 offspring all had 106 kids of their own, then theoretically his grandkids could all inherit $1,423,994!
 
finesse said:
He still got it wrong. Run toward someone slower than you.

Alligators in Florida can reach speeds up to 35 mph in short bursts on land.
Click to expand...
1. Alligators generally aren't interested in humans.
2. This place is nothing like Alcatraz. You can just walk on a road to Miami or Tampa. Odds are pretty good that someone would pick you up if you made it to the main highway. Alligator Alcatraz makes it sound like it is surrounded by a moat or something.
 
Paine said:
I get what you’re saying, but I think there’s a category error here. Saying billionaires shouldn’t exist isn’t a personal belief in the way someone prefers chocolate over vanilla. It’s a political judgment grounded in how power, wealth, and democracy function in the real world.

Again: this isn’t about moral vibes, it’s about structure. We either have a system where a handful of people can accumulate enough wealth to bend policy, markets, and even elections to their will, or we have a functioning democracy. We can’t have both.

All laws codify values. The current system codifies the belief that wealth accumulation, even at obscene levels, is more important than universal housing, healthcare, or a livable planet. So yes, I believe in codifying something different. A system that treats democracy and dignity as non-negotiable.

Disagreement is fine. That’s just politics. But let’s not pretend all visions are equally valid just because they’re sincerely held. Some beliefs uphold oligarchy. Others fight for democracy. The moment we pretend all visions are equally valid because they’re “personal,” we drain politics of its content and protect the status quo by default.
Click to expand...
To me, your statements are too over-arching in some ways. As an example..."We either have a system where a handful of people can accumulate enough wealth to bend policy, markets, and even elections to their will, or we have a functioning democracy."

By this sort of binary choice, do you think your definition of functioning democracy has ever existed on the planet? It certainly would not seem to have ever existed in the United States.

Maybe I'm letting perfect be the enemy of good by saying this but I dont believe a market economy can ever produce a system where a handful of people can't bend policy with their wealth. I think that we have to work to create a system where those with that wealth and power exercise it in ways that better benefit society lest they be consumed by the monster they control.

To me, we dont fix out broken system by legislating a wealth glass ceiling so much as we build a society where those of means are desirous of helping those without.

Us vs. Them ain't gonna work...in my opinion.
 
Take Citizens United and flush it
Have Elizabeth Warrren rewrite all tax codes
Billionaires don't bother me-if their stock increases in value 100 million dollars in one year -there should some tax . 100 Billion dollars, a higher %
 
mpaer said:
Take Citizens United and flush it
Have Elizabeth Warrren rewrite all tax codes
Billionaires don't bother me-if their stock increases in value 100 million dollars in one year -there should some tax . 100 Billion dollars, a higher %
Click to expand...
Take the Trump approach - That's a nice business you got there. I'd hate to have anything happen to it. I tell you what, contribute two billion dollars into the Medicare-for-all fund and I'll let you keep it. Deal?
 
Paine said:
But let’s not pretend all visions are equally valid just because they’re sincerely held. Some beliefs uphold oligarchy. Others fight for democracy.
Click to expand...
There have been a lot of smart people who didn't think democracy was a desirable social/political arrangement. Plato, Hegel, Nietzsche. LOL, maybe even Marx. Well, he believed in democracy as long as it led to socialism, but is it really democracy if it must lead to a predetermined end? Anyway, there's a pretty long list of serious thinkers over the centuries whose views can certainly be debated with but it seems a little bit arrogant to call them invalid, although I'll admit I'm not quite sure what you mean by valid. I mean, oligarchy is just as "valid" as democracy. Maybe not as desirable to some people, but I'm not sure what that has to do with validity. There are lots of ways of thinking about the world and lots of people have done it. Democracy (and dialectical materialism for that matter) are just two ideas in life's rich pageant, but none of them are self-evident, the Declaration of Independence notwithstanding. Speaking about them as if they are is a strategy, I suppose, but don't expect everyone to buy it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top