Billionaires Should Not Exist

[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.

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.

tldr

[Silhouette]

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.

"So what you are saying is..."
Stop being so black and white.

I repeat: "obviously without individuals, society wouldn't exist". The individual exists, just indebted to society.
I most definitely am not saying that the individual has no agency, just because it is intricately embedded within society.
A bird in a murmuration is not completely without rights and agency, in fact the tiniest of their individual movements influence the whole flock to move as a whole. It's not "one or the other", don't be so binary - that's so individualist. You guys seriously need to stop with the biased preconceptions.

Individuals have rights as a result of the society to whom they are indebted for as long as they remain and act within the society. A billionaire can leave society, and witness just how rich they are then, and how many rights they lose.
They own themselves as a function of their place in society, not "one or the other". "Complete enslavement and zero agency and rights, or complete freedom and agency and all rights" - what a false dilemma, are you not able to think beyond that?
A billionaire is a billionaire because of society. Individually they are one person of many in an interwoven web, no better or worse, but they can be celebrated nonetheless in proportion to their net effect to society. Spoilers - that's not going to be in the billions.

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

Does that make the point go away? No.

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

No. Blunt-force binary powers strike again.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.

tldr

You fucking nazi trash.

[Silhouette]

You fucking nazi trash.

Pedro shut the fuck up about nazis.

[obsrvr524]

I most definitely am not saying that the individual has no agency, just because it is intricately embedded within society.

So what is the limit of that agency - as it relates to being able to become a billionaire?

[Pedro I Rengel]

From Hitler's Speech to the Workers of Berlin (10 December 1940)

"We see that the primary cause for the existing tensions lies in the unfair distribution of the riches of the earth. And it is only natural that evolution follows the same rule in the larger framework as it does in the case of individuals. Just as the tension existing between rich and poor within a country must be compensated for either by reason or often if reason fails, by force, so in the life of a nation one cannot claim everything and leave nothing to others.... "

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Adolf_Hi ... ember_1940)

Just in case anybody got any ideas of forgetting.

Some other interesting lines from that speech:

It is interesting to examine the life of these rich people. In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their wishes. Analysing this problem more closely, we see that the people themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.' By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of the 'freedom of the press.'


It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times - only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise, the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.

To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say: 'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?

It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case in other countries.

They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is another matter.

The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace. On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible for idle drones to inhabit this country.

I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our problems.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Adolf_Hi ... ember_1940)

[Pedro I Rengel]

Also I'm waiting for that retraction.

[Pedro I Rengel]

And dorkydood still owes me a pic.

[Silhouette]

I most definitely am not saying that the individual has no agency, just because it is intricately embedded within society.

So what is the limit of that agency - as it relates to being able to become a billionaire?

It's proportional to the society as a whole and the genuine contribution to that society as judged by that society.

Well, a fair limit to that agency is anyway. If they're individually literally billions of times more valuable than others, then let them have billions of times more reward I guess.

Also I'm waiting for that retraction.

There's nothing to retract.

Sounds like you just misunderstood.

[obsrvr524]

I most definitely am not saying that the individual has no agency, just because it is intricately embedded within society.

So what is the limit of that agency - as it relates to being able to become a billionaire?

It's proportional to the society as a whole and the genuine contribution to that society as judged by that society.

And how does "society" make that assessment?

Well, a fair limit to that agency is anyway. If they're individually literally billions of times more valuable than others, then let them have billions of times more reward I guess.

How do we know that isn't what is happening right now?

[Silhouette]

It's proportional to the society as a whole and the genuine contribution to that society as judged by that society.

And how does "society" make that assessment?

Ask them?

Well, a fair limit to that agency is anyway. If they're individually literally billions of times more valuable than others, then let them have billions of times more reward I guess.

How do we know that isn't what is happening right now?

Er... ask them?

[Pedro I Rengel]

There's nothing to retract.

Sounds like you just misunderstood.

No I'm pretty sure.

You said "you give wealthy people wealth." It's clear we don't mean you as in Sillhouette. But even the figurative you. Because I said "nobody gives them anything," and gave some basic reasoning why. And you agreed it was so.

So I am waiting for a retraction.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Also I would like your take on those Hitler quotes.

[Pedro I Rengel]

But just the retraction would suffice.

[obsrvr524]

ask them

So you have a national vote on whether a billionaire has properly reinvested in society?

Corporation CEOs become purely political?

From what I have seen - The current US tax strategy is to keep the power in the hands of politicians. They handle that power by making tax rates based on reinvestment control and manipulation. If they do not reinvest at all, their tax rate is huge. Each type of reinvestment earns a different tax rate for the reinvestment percentage.

So currently politicians are already controlling how a billionaire's money is being spent. But you are saying that the billionaire himself has to campaign in public to explain how his money is reinvested? You want politicians actually running the corporations.

That is one way to ensure the US never produces anything worth having. But it is looking like the US is going to be bankrupt and isn't going to be of any good for anything ever again anyway. So why go to the trouble?

[Silhouette]

You said "you give wealthy people wealth." It's clear we don't mean you as in Sillhouette. But even the figurative you. Because I said "nobody gives them anything," and gave some basic reasoning why. And you agreed it was so.

You understand that billionaires don't get their money from printing it right? They get it from people "e.g. you" giving it to them in exchange for a product or service as I just said explained. Is this confusing so far?
This is getting their money from trading, as you even said so yourself. They take in more money as revenue than they pay out in expenses. The money comes in from people giving it to them in this way.
This is in contrast to people giving them money for nothing, like an inheritance, which they often get too, which you also acknowledged. And when they're not getting money in this way, the billionaire is getting it from paying people less than these people earn the billionaire - the definition of profit that earns them their billions.

I don't know what the fuck you want me to retract, these are all basic facts.

So you have a national vote on whether a billionaire has properly reinvested in society?

A vote on whether the billionaire deserves billions of times more money than hard working employees working hand to mouth would be nice. Maybe then the workers who earn him his money can buy into his business and spread this awfully horrible "risk" that he's so brave to bare for the small price of billions in compensation.

Corporation CEOs become purely political?

Not as radical as you might think - if you remember that politics isn't just for political elites in governments, but everyday people and workers too. Simply have business transparency so everyone can see the machinations of how they're ripped off and power-played into accepting low low "market" wages to make someone else rich. Let actual workers earn their way into owning the tools that they're using every day rather than hording all the ownership into the hands of one singular autocrat.

From what I have seen - The current US tax strategy is to keep the power in the hands of politicians. They handle that power by making tax rates based on reinvestment control and manipulation. If they do not reinvest at all, their tax rate is huge. Each type of reinvestment earns a different tax rate for the reinvestment percentage.

I think we can all agree that current US tax strategy is balls.
More transparency and poltical power to workers, and maybe they'd straighten themselves out, no? Instead of one farce of a general election to worry about every few years, after which it's back to enacting their poor policies.

So currently politicians are already controlling how a billionaire's money is being spent. But you are saying that the billionaire himself has to campaign in public to explain how his money is reinvested? You want politicians actually running the corporations.

If by politicians, you mean regular people, then yes.

That is one way to ensure the US never produces anything worth having. But it is looking like the US is going to be bankrupt and isn't going to be of any good for anything ever again anyway. So why go to the trouble?

It wouldn't have to inevitably go bankrupt if it'd empower its majority. That's a sure way to ensure the US, and other nations, produce far better.

[Pedro I Rengel]

They get it from people "e.g. you" giving it to them

This is what we already agreed doesn't happen. They trade for it. I asked if you saw the distinction and you said "yes."

So I think you still owe us a retraction.

[Silhouette]

They get it from people "e.g. you" giving it to them

This is what we already agreed doesn't happen. They trade for it. I asked if you saw the distinction and you said "yes."

So I think you still owe us a retraction.

I really want there to be something to retract but there just isn't anything.
You realise trading is a give and take? The bit where money goes to them such that they acquire their billions is where you give it to them, and they take it.
The other side of the trade is they give you goods/services and you take them.

I think we can safely conclude you're trolling if you don't get this basic piece of common sense, so ball's in your court. If you still don't get it, I can safely assume you're being intentionally dumb to waste both our time. Or unintentionally? :\ Let's hope not!

[Pedro I Rengel]

But that would require for you not to have stated that you do see the distinction.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Don't make me spank you with that smart mouth of yours.

[Silhouette]

But that would require for you not to have stated that you do see the distinction.

Okay so I can retract not seeing a distinction on account of having seen it, and this'll get you off my case asking for a retraction?
Maybe then we can move on?
Do you do philosophy by the way? Or only make smart comments and object when others do too?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Yes, all I'm asking for is a retraction of this statement:

You're already rewarding excellence by giving the wealthy so much money that they are so wealthy.

[Jakob]

Well Dorky that's not how companies work. You have shareholders, and quite frequently, the creator of a company holds a majority of the shares. If such a company acquires a worth of three billion dollars, what do you propose to do, force the owners to give away a part of his company? I dont think that's going to make for a functional economy. Incentive and confidence is quite crucial.

On the contrary, the way of evolution is for types to evolve into extremes and subdivide. This is kind of the tendency we are seeing in terms of wealthy and not so wealthy humanoids, and it is generally a result of technology.
Technology costs a lot of money to produce and causes greater concentrations of wealth, causing greater investments still and so the scientific part of evolution progresses. I honestly think we have just started down this road.

The thing is though that this doesnt need to be bad for anyone. It depends on the ideas going around about what to do with great wealth, what kind of philanthropy is fashionable. Philanthropy has been misunderstood since the advent of socialism - it has become something done out of pity rather than out of a natural will to bestow virtue.

What is the basic premise on which your moral idea is built, meaning: what is the human species, what is its essence, that it would need to have its wealth controlled -- to which end must it be controlled? "happiness"? So are we defined in terms of a happiness that arises out of an even distribution of goods? I dont think that there is proof of this in nature; we rather see that great differences are preferable as long as there is no great poverty.

In other words, poverty, not wealth is the problem.

And no, there is no such thing as relative poverty. Its a matter of living quality.
As long as no one is lacking basic provisions, there isnt a moral reason to be found to object to other people having enormous wealth.
It is just a matter of how the wealth is handled.

So the question really is: who should be wealthy? What should be rewarded? Thats the only question the masses have any power to answer.

[obsrvr524]

A vote on whether the billionaire deserves billions of times more money than hard working employees working hand to mouth would be nice. Maybe then the workers who earn him his money can buy into his business and spread this awfully horrible "risk" that he's so brave to bare for the small price of billions in compensation.

So you actually envision over 600 national elections every year to decide if each billionaire has acted socially responsible? That seems amazingly unrealistic and would completely nullify the intent - TooMuchInformation for people to responsibly digest.

Corporation CEOs become purely political?

Not as radical as you might think - if you remember that politics isn't just for political elites in governments, but everyday people and workers too. Simply have business transparency so everyone can see the machinations of how they're ripped off and power-played into accepting low low "market" wages to make someone else rich. Let actual workers earn their way into owning the tools that they're using every day rather than hording all the ownership into the hands of one singular autocrat.

So no privacy for competing corporations - open books - open designs - no intellectual property - no competition strategy. Have you watched ANY of what has been happening in the US televised Congress where politicians attempt to compete? They end up deceiving even more than if the public wasn't watching. And you want to add 600 more to that even though hardly anyone in the US watches the 400 they already have. You are talking about extremely massive deception campaigns involving secret, illegal cabals. No one would end up knowing anything about the truth concerning any person involved. And the strict politicians would get even less attention so free to deceive even more.

More transparency and poltical power to workers, and maybe they'd straighten themselves out, no?

What makes you think "workers" would be any better than anyone else? They are not going to be the brightest available. They are going to have the exact same incentives as anyone else. Do you really think getting MORE idiots into the power game is going to improve anything at all?

Instead of one farce of a general election to worry about every few years, after which it's back to enacting their poor policies.

So instead you have 1000 elections EVERY year. People wouldn't have time to do anything else with their lives except listen to political speeches. Who would do the work? They elect representatives for a reason - so they all don't have to go do it themselves - 330.000.000 members of US Congress. They can't even get 400 to work together.

So currently politicians are already controlling how a billionaire's money is being spent. But you are saying that the billionaire himself has to campaign in public to explain how his money is reinvested? You want politicians actually running the corporations.

If by politicians, you mean regular people, then yes.

Billionaires ARE "regular people" who merely found a way to gain a lot of money. But if they all have to be politicians as well as CEOs then secret cabals is the ONLY possible outcome. And who pays for their campaign? Advertisers would become the political CEOs you are talking about. Advertisers who decide who gets the better representation deal. They certainly wouldn't try to cheat in their own favor. People in the US just don't do that. Well - "workers" obviously don't. But there aren't going to be any workers so that doesn't matter.

It wouldn't have to inevitably go bankrupt if it'd empower its majority. That's a sure way to ensure the US, and other nations, produce far better.

Throughout the entire world wherever there is socialism/communism quality and service goes down - very far down. They have no reason to do any better - so they don't - welcome Venezuela.

You DO realize that Europe has backed away from socialism? They realized that they must have more capitalism - not totally in either direction. But certainly not 330.000.000 people trying to vote on 1000 corporate leaders every year. That is just ridiculous.

[Jakob]

An increased awareness of real value, i.e. a better valuing, is the only way to control capitalism and to steer toward loftier distributions of well-being.

Supply will always follow demand. Nature has it this way - pettiness is by far our greatest concern, as humanity. Lack of loftiness, lack of understanding of nature as overflowing.

Great cultures are symbols of this overflowing. Wealth is provided within such cultures. Wealth outside of culture isnt thinkable.