Billionaires Should Not Exist

[Urwrongx1000]

A "Socialist" is a beggar on the street, pleading for loose change, but when offered a job he turns it away immediately, nor would you want him in your Employ anyway.

Unwilling and Unable to work for himself, he looks for handouts, or worse, believes he is entitled to the crumbs of others.

The problem however, is that the Socialists of 2020, of the Modern-Post-Modern world, have fat bellies, and although they engorge themselves on a Post-Industrial diet of excess, it is still not enough to sate their endless Gluttony and Selfishness.

[obsrvr524]

"Some power isn't enough - I want ALL of it!"

"Feed me Seymour!"

[Silhouette]

There is no inherent law that states individuals are entitled to 100% of profits.

Exactly.

There is no way a billionaire could ever get even close to their riches by themselves. The only way they made any profit in the first place is by paying people less than what they helped him earn. By consistently underpaying his helpers compared to what they earned him, he has amassed orders of magnitude times more than them. Because what? A capitalist society celebrates the man who starts with the most property emerging with even more, because "it's his". Without his property, his help could not have made him rich, and without his help, his property alone would not have made him anywhere near as rich. The enormous help, that goes into earning billions for a property owner, to whom the billionaire owes almost all of his absurd riches, is simply paid off with many orders of magnitude much less reward. And why? Because they started with less property, so deserve less in return. Meanwhile he takes even more money for having already been even more rich. This is the capitalist system and this is what we reward.

[Ecmandu]

And we have the police and military defending it with their lives.

[Magnus Anderson]

What two strangers do in their business dealings is not your business.

If it affects others, it is their business. The question is merely: does it affect others, and if so, in what way does it affect them?

And to all the Socialists trying to legitimize their thievery of people's money, you're going to need to do a much, much, much (repeated for Magnus, he needs it), much better job of presenting a case, persuading, and convincing others, especially those whom you wish to steal from.

It goes without saying (which means it doesn't even have to be said let alone repeated) that if you want to change someone's mind you have to do whatever is necessary to do which for some peopel means making a lot of effort.

There is no inherent law that states individuals are entitled to 100% of profits.

Yes there is.

It's my property. I seeded and harvested my crops. I own them. You are entitled to 0% of it.

If it is irrational for every human being to be a billionaire, then it follows that billionaires shouldn't exist. The question is merely whether being a billionaire is an irrational thing for real. That is the subject of this discussion.

The fact that you can take control of something doesn't mean that you should. More generally, just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

[Pedro I Rengel]

If it is irrational for every human being to be a billionaire, then it follows that billionaires shouldn't exist.

Wow.

[obsrvr524]

There is no inherent law that states individuals are entitled to 100% of profits.

Actually that is not true. There are two inherent "laws" -

• Contract law - each employee has accepted a contract for specific reimbursement only.
• Property rights - that which is legally obtained by a person cannot be legally taken from him without his permission - (anti-theft)

There is no way a billionaire could ever get even close to their riches by themselves.

And there is no way you survived birth and childhood by yourself. So your life belongs to --- the government - CCP - Globalists? Certainly you do not belong to yourself.

The only way they made any profit in the first place is by paying people less than what they helped him earn.

That is the contract they signed. Did they sign up to a competitor? No? Why not?

If you can make a case that the employer blocked their ability to get employed elsewhere - you have a court case.

[obsrvr524]

If it is irrational for every human being to be a billionaire, then it follows that billionaires shouldn't exist.

I don't think that follows. EVERY person being a billionaire is very different than A SINGLE person being a billionaire.

[Urwrongx1000]

If it is irrational for every human being to be a billionaire, then it follows that billionaires shouldn't exist.

Wow.

It truly is impressive how badly Marxists argue, isn't it...? LOL

[Urwrongx1000]

If it affects others, it is their business. The question is merely: does it affect others, and if so, in what way does it affect them?

You have no right to ask or know how much I or others make, you're wrong on this point. My bank account, any stranger's bank account, is truly none of your business.

It goes without saying (which means it doesn't even have to be said let alone repeated) that if you want to change someone's mind you have to do whatever is necessary to do which for some peopel means making a lot of effort.

I've listened to you and dorkydood, I am unimpressed and not even slightly convinced of your points. They are juvenile at best.

If it is irrational for every human being to be a billionaire, then it follows that billionaires shouldn't exist.

So what should or should not exist is based on whether it is rational or not?

I disagree, irrational things should exist, and they do whether people want them to or not.

The question is merely whether being a billionaire is an irrational thing for real. That is the subject of this discussion.

Being a billionaire is perfectly rational because some individuals, businesses, corporations, and governments are more successful than others.

Wealth is a primary indicator of societal success.

The fact that you can take control of something doesn't mean that you should. More generally, just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

Non Sequitur, nobody is talking about "taking control" of things.

What I said was, if you want to act as the third-party moral authority, The State, then you need to justify yourself, and you haven't.

Nor has dorkydood nor Silhouette. You have no moral authority to insert yourself between the business dealings of strangers, of people you don't even know.


Yet that is the presumption you and other Socialists/Marxists/Communists are operating from.

[obsrvr524]

Without the system, there cannot be a billionaire.

That is true. And because of that every billionaire should return something to that system that supports his billions. The question never asked is whether he actually does that. Paying taxes is an obvious way to do that but it has its drawbacks - it disinspires others from doing what it takes to become a billionaire. The society ends up with having no billionaires to tax.

The much better alternative is to say, "IF you will reinvest into society in certain ways, we will not need to tax you and you will still be able to make even more." And that is exactly what the US (and many countries do) to inspire even more people to become billionaires who give back to society but NOT through taxes.

The socialist wants to make the billionaire ALSO pay taxes - to pay back twice. And they only want that because they want to grab as much from everyone as they possibly can even though it leads to complete ruin. A good thief doesn't steal literally everything from everyone else he can no longer steal. Socialists are thieves - just not good at it so they destroy their host. They are a cancer.

We create the system, we create the rules. There is no inherent law that states individuals are entitled to 100% of profits.

Call it a "natural law". If you take too much, you kill the crop. Blame whomever you like. But realize that never having been a billionaire - you have no idea what is "too much" to be demanding - childishly wanting for what isn't actually free for you to take without consequences.

The consequence of over taxing the billionaires is having no more billionaires.

And that means having no more employed being hired by those billionaires. And that means even less tax from those employees. The consequence is your own bankruptcy due to trying to take too much. What did you give in return? Those who actually gain from high taxes are NOT the workers - but the Politburo. The peasants starve even more.

And what I would maintain is that it doesn't make sense, ethically or morally, for any evolved ape to have 1 billion times more wealth than any other evolved ape, when the consequences are unnecessary suffering.

Prove "unnecessary". There is more necessary than you know.

[obsrvr524]

If it affects others, it is their business. The question is merely: does it affect others, and if so, in what way does it affect them?

Doesn't everything affect everything else to some degree? And yes, everything is everyone's business - because everything affects everyone. But the rights of people have to come into play somewhere. No rights (meaning that others cannot interfere even though it affects them) means everyone being merely another's slave. Slaves have no rights. Citizens do. And that means that even those things that affect you cannot always be yours to interfere with - like someone else finding a way to gain billions even though no one else figured it out.


A contract where no one wins is a contract where everyone loses. - called "Socialism"

[d0rkyd00d]

Call it a "natural law". If you take too much, you kill the crop. Blame whomever you like. But realize that never having been a billionaire - you have no idea what is "too much" to be demanding - childishly wanting for what isn't actually free for you to take without consequences.

The consequence of over taxing the billionaires is having no more billionaires.

And that means having no more employed being hired by those billionaires. And that means even less tax from those employees. The consequence is your own bankruptcy due to trying to take too much. What did you give in return? Those who actually gain from high taxes are NOT the workers - but the Politburo. The peasants starve even more.

Obsrvr, the reason I find conversation difficult is because it seems pointing out the absurdity if your arguments doesn't lead to a concession. Correctly, you state that the "consequence of over-taxing the billionaires is having no more billionaires." This is obvious that is my point. But then you go on to claim "And that means having no more employed being hired by those billionaires." As if an individual owning billions has evidently precipitated into more jobs vs. other periods in the 20th century.

On a side note, this is what I find odd (and perhaps unique to this period in time): in my short lifetime, I don't know if I have ever seen the poor so feverishly defending the ultra-wealthy. It's almost as if keeping the nearly impossible dream of becoming a billionaire (or even millionaire for many) alive is worth perpetuating their own poverty. Look how many people are defending Donald Trump, a billionaire, who are worth less than $500K. It's fascinating.

But I digress. The reality is, the U.S. had a top marginal tax rate of 90% after WW2 and the economy thrived. The tax rate remained above 70% for the majority of the next three decades. It didn't prevent the growth of business in the U.S. from what I am able to find evidence for. So all these arguments about higher taxes leading to less motivation for people to start businesses and create jobs is bunk, historically speaking.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Obsrvr, the reason I find conversation difficult is because it seems pointing out the absurdity if your arguments doesn't lead to a concession.

These commies are too much.

Nazi trash shouldn't exist.

[d0rkyd00d]

Obsrvr, the reason I find conversation difficult is because it seems pointing out the absurdity if your arguments doesn't lead to a concession.

These commies are too much.

Nazi trash shouldn't exist.

Pedro you remind me of a doll that has a string coming out of its back that talks when you pull it, and only has seven different sentences to cycle through. I have you on ignore and occasionally will expand a post to see what you've said, and I'll be damned if I don't guess it right 9 times out of 10.

[d0rkyd00d]

If it affects others, it is their business. The question is merely: does it affect others, and if so, in what way does it affect them?

Doesn't everything affect everything else to some degree? And yes, everything is everyone's business - because everything affects everyone. But the rights of people have to come into play somewhere. No rights (meaning that others cannot interfere even though it affects them) means everyone being merely another's slave. Slaves have no rights. Citizens do. And that means that even those things that affect you cannot always be yours to interfere with - like someone else finding a way to gain billions even though no one else figured it out.


A contract where no one wins is a contract where everyone loses. - called "Socialism"

I wonder if there is any agreement that can be reached about the degree to which the value capitalism has miscalculated the value of certain types of labor. I just don't think the skills a lot of billionaires bring to the table is worth the wealth they accumulate for it. You may ask, "Well what puts you in a position to determine the value of what they do?" To which I'd respond, "what puts capitalism and free markets in a position to do so? Why blindly accept the proposition that free market capitalism will always accurately price products and services? Is it not possible that if free market capitalism is a blind and unfeeling mechanism, that we must override some of the results it produces based on our humanity? How much more valuable is the product a billionaire offers, vs. that of a teacher or paramedic?

[Peter Kropotkin]

d0rkyd00d:
Pedro you remind me of a doll that has a string coming out of its back that talks when you pull it, and only has seven different sentences to cycle through. I have you on ignore and occasionally will expand a post to see what you've said, and I'll be damned if I don't guess it right 9 times out of 10.

K: and we have a winner.... Pedro and his ilk has all the depth of a sheet of paper...
they have nothing outside of their shallowness....

Kropotkin

[Urwrongx1000]

LOL, so your opponents should just have concessions without you persuading them??

Yikes!

[d0rkyd00d]

If it is irrational for every human being to be a billionaire, then it follows that billionaires shouldn't exist.

I don't think that follows. EVERY person being a billionaire is very different than A SINGLE person being a billionaire.

While I agree with much of what you say Magnus, I too was wondering about this, it didn't make sense to me. Can you clarify?

And perhaps this is my fault for not being able to more clearly lay out the premises of the argument (partially because it is still being formed through conversation!). Let me make another attempt at laying out my premises and see if that clarifies where the disagreements are.

1) The monetary system (specifically fiat currency, and in some regards, the economy as a whole) is ultimately a fiction, 100% artificially created.
2) Most major economies already recognize the value in taxing the wealthiest / highest income earners, including the U.S.
3) Where we set the limits of progressive taxation is just as arbitrary as the monetary system.
4) Wealth inequality is in fact problematic for the wealthiest in a society, as history demonstrates cyclically that when inequality becomes too great, revolutions occur. In other words, it is in the best interest of the ultra-wealthy to ensure wealth disparity doesn't grow too great (the question of "too great," once again being somewhat arbitrary, until the event of societal collapse and/or revolution).
5) Wealth has become more disparate in the United States in the past forty years.

Any of these points controversial?

[d0rkyd00d]

LOL, so your opponents should just have concessions without you persuading them??

Yikes!

So do you agree with this statement?

The consequence of over taxing the billionaires is having no more billionaires.

And that means having no more employed being hired by those billionaires.

I don't think the conclusion follows. How is the personal income and net worth of an individual related to job creation? And again, if there was a correlation, why wasn't job creation in the U.S. tanking in the 1950's - 1980's?

[Magnus Anderson]

If it is irrational for every human being to be a billionaire, then it follows that billionaires shouldn't exist.

I don't think that follows. EVERY person being a billionaire is very different than A SINGLE person being a billionaire.

Correct. "Everyone being a billionaire" is different from "a single person being a billionaire". The thing is, I don't recall speaking of "everyone being a billionaire". (My English might have failed me, I can't tell.)

Let restate what I said using different words:

If for every human being in the world the choice of becoming a billionaire doesn't lead to the best possible consequences, then it follows that "billionaires shouldn't exist" in the sense that if everyone made the best choice then no person would be a billionaire (which means billionaires wouldn't exist.)

What doesn't follow, however, is that we should tax billionaires.

Part of the problem, I believe, is that there are several different concerns that aren't clearly separated here in this thread. The question of "Are there people for whom it is rational to be billionaires?" is different from the question of "How to deal with those who aren't the most rational people out there?" which is related to but different from "How to deal with those who negatively affect others?"

And saying something like "I should be a billionaire because I earned the billions (or because they are my billions)" is not an argument against the claim that one shouldn't be a billionaire. That's like saying "I should smoke weed because it's my weed."

Doesn't everything affect everything else to some degree? And yes, everything is everyone's business - because everything affects everyone.

If what someone is doing is negatively affecting you in some way, then what that someone is doing is your business. And that means you should consider doing something about it. Perhaps you should do nothing about it (because by fixing that particular aspect of your life you will create a mess -- a much bigger mess -- in some other part of your life), perhaps you should do something about it. That's the question.

And when someone comes along and claims that "What X is doing has a negative impact on my life, I should stop him doing that!", our duty is to evaluate whether the perceived impact is real and whether the proposed action is the best out there.

[Urwrongx1000]

Candy bars cost $2.00. It wasn't long ago they cost $1.50 and $1.00. When I was a child, they cost $0.50. Before my generation, they cost $0.25, and long ago $0.10 and $0.05.



It's called INFLATION. So obviously there will be more millionaires and billionaires because of it. No correlation or causation required, all that is required is basic Economic understanding, which is apparently missing in lots of these "conversations".

[Urwrongx1000]

Inflation is good when you have lots of debt.

Inflation is bad when you have lots invested into a savings account.

[Silhouette]

There is no way a billionaire could ever get even close to their riches by themselves.

And there is no way you survived birth and childhood by yourself. So your life belongs to --- the government - CCP - Globalists? Certainly you do not belong to yourself.

Certainly I couldn't have done it myself. Simplistically it would have been sufficient for just my parents to have been involved, but in reality there were many more factors involved, interwoven with society as a whole to specifically set up the conditions necessary for any one individual to have been born rather than someone else, that are inextricable from society's material conditions. I was not a problematic birth, though to some extent there was healthcare service involved, the manufacture of all the equipment involved, roads and transport - and all these sorts of things apply to the circumstances necessary for my parents to have met at all, along with everything up to (and after) my birth. Society is a complex web that applies just as much to everyone else in it as it does to me.
Specifically the government though? The CCP and "globalists"? Obviously you've intentionally reduced that for political effect and rhetoric.

Obviously without individuals, society wouldn't exist, but each individual as a proportion of the wider web of society barely figures as a stand-alone "self-made" force, as if they were operating in isolation. To those who want to wave their dicks around and boast narcissistic claims about individual success and prowess, they're simply making a mathematical mistake - failing to be able to count the number of other factors involved. They think some one person can do the work of millions of people? A severe deficit in numeracy. Even if it were possible for one person to work harder than thousands of others, completely unaided, in a world of billions they are still proportionally but an insect. It's illness to be so dullened to think otherwise.

The only way they made any profit in the first place is by paying people less than what they helped him earn.

That is the contract they signed. Did they sign up to a competitor? No? Why not?

If you can make a case that the employer blocked their ability to get employed elsewhere - you have a court case.

People "consent" to contracts to the degree that they don't have the power to negotiate better.
Those starting with more power have the ability to negotiate better contracts for themselves.
They can literally distort the numbers in their favour, and inequality is able to spiral. "Going without" an agreement can be devastating to one party (e.g. the non-capitalist without the property and social position to legally exort others themselves), and a triviality for another party (e.g. a capitalist with vastly more property and better social position to go without or elsewhere).

The idea that contracts reflect consent is a naivety upon which the rich thrive and the poor struggle. It's not impossible to wrangle your position up and up, but the tide is most certainly against you when you try - as nearly all people do everyday all the time. The fact that so few succeed is a reflection of it being the exception and not the rule, and the ideology of the rich is to celebrate such cases to prove that the system isn't rigged. It's obvious if you think about it for just a second - that it wouldn't earn celebration if it were commonplace and ordinary.

[obsrvr524]

There is no way a billionaire could ever get even close to their riches by themselves.

And there is no way you survived birth and childhood by yourself. So your life belongs to --- the government - CCP - Globalists? Certainly you do not belong to yourself.

Certainly I couldn't have done it myself. Simplistically it would have been sufficient for just my parents to have been involved, but in reality there were many more factors involved, interwoven with society as a whole to specifically set up the conditions necessary for any one individual to have been born rather than someone else, that are inextricable from society's material conditions. I was not a problematic birth, though to some extent there was healthcare service involved, the manufacture of all the equipment involved, roads and transport - and all these sorts of things apply to the circumstances necessary for my parents to have met at all, along with everything up to (and after) my birth. Society is a complex web that applies just as much to everyone else in it as it does to me.
Specifically the government though? The CCP and "globalists"? Obviously you've intentionally reduced that for political effect and rhetoric.

Obviously without individuals, society wouldn't exist, but each individual as a proportion of the wider web of society barely figures as a stand-alone "self-made" force, as if they were operating in isolation. To those who want to wave their dicks around and boast narcissistic claims about individual success and prowess, they're simply making a mathematical mistake - failing to be able to count the number of other factors involved. They think some one person can do the work of millions of people? A severe deficit in numeracy. Even if it were possible for one person to work harder than thousands of others, completely unaided, in a world of billions they are still proportionally but an insect. It's illness to be so dullened to think otherwise.

I well understand all of that. So what you are saying is that your life belongs to society - not you.

Yes that certainly is communist - individuals have no rights of their own - no ownership of even themselves.

That is the contract they signed. Did they sign up to a competitor? No? Why not?

If you can make a case that the employer blocked their ability to get employed elsewhere - you have a court case.

People "consent" to contracts to the degree that they don't have the power to negotiate better.

Are you trying to make a distinction between "consenting" and "agreeing"?

Those starting with more power have the ability to negotiate better contracts for themselves. They can literally distort the numbers in their favour, and inequality is able to spiral. "Going without" an agreement can be devastating to one party (e.g. the non-capitalist without the property and social position to legally exort others themselves), and a triviality for another party (e.g. a capitalist with vastly more property and better social position to go without or elsewhere).

The idea that contracts reflect consent is a naivety upon which the rich thrive and the poor struggle. It's not impossible to wrangle your position up and up, but the tide is most certainly against you when you try - as nearly all people do everyday all the time. The fact that so few succeed is a reflection of it being the exception and not the rule, and the ideology of the rich is to celebrate such cases to prove that the system isn't rigged. It's obvious if you think about it for just a second - that it wouldn't earn celebration if it were commonplace and ordinary.

So is your argument that there should be no contracts? No consenting or agreements?