61–70 of 262 posts
Singapore has one of the highest income inequalities in the world. It has one of the lowest violence rates in the world. You can say the same about China too and many other countries in Asia.
How about we take away everything down to 10^6$ from the 0.0001% richest and redistribute it to everyone. We repeat this with the 0.0001% of the richest every year from there on. Every time someone is chosen for this honour they get a medal.
Imagine for a moment you are a driven, self-made .00001%er. If you KNEW your profits were taken at the top, would you work hard and innovate? Or would you commit fraud and squirrel away your wealth or not bother. Im sure a few would see it as a 'goal', but stakeholders would doubtlessly disagree. The spirit, I agree with, but not possible to cleanly implement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you are old enough to remember that far leftist ideological organizations were often violent up until the last quarter of the 20th century. This period of peacefulness is a recent phenomenon. One of the big pacifiers of democracy is that people accept the result because the majority voted for it. When you have a situation when 46% of the population is pushing an agenda that at least 48% of the population…
>at least 48% of the population is strongly against Where did you get that number from? Hillary Clinton got 65.8 Million votes. That represents 20.6% of the United states population. >That group often starts to look for alternative ways to flex its majority power. See above. They were the majority of voters but they defintely don't represent the majority of the US.
In Washington, DC Donald Trump won 4% of the vote.
Is it not surprising those people feel a bit underrepresented right now and might turn to alternative means of flexing their massive majority in the areas they specifically live?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Culturally, Americans have chosen "Nazis" and zombies as default groups on which we can assert violence without questioning our moral values or their expression. While Richard Spencer is even saying in that clip that he isn't a Neo Nazi (before getting punched) - a great deal of the American population don't draw the lines as finely as he might. He's certainly said some things that put him in that world of thought. I…
Are you seriously sympathizing with a man who called for an American ethnic cleansing?
My wife and I both chose careers of service that are directly antithetical to the words and thoughts of this man. I sympathize with the desire to punch him - he is eminently punchable - but I believe that directing violence on him will serve to draw support to his cause, increase the likelihood of violence being perpetrated on my allies, and undermine the credibility and standing of my moral and political beliefs.
We should resist the normalization of violence in our political discourse.
Edit: grammar
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine for a moment you are a driven, self-made .00001%er. If you KNEW your profits were taken at the top, would you work hard and innovate? Or would you commit fraud and squirrel away your wealth or not bother. Im sure a few would see it as a 'goal', but stakeholders would doubtlessly disagree. The spirit, I agree with, but not possible to cleanly implement.
There is no amount of work a human being could do that justifies the wealth that is in the hands of people like Zuckerberg and Warren Buffet. They seem like decent enough people, but they have an obscene amount of wealth and power.
For example, gambling on investments, as with Buffet, or on a new idea, as with Zuckerberg. Sometimes just for gambling on Powerball.
The great rewards are balanced by great risks, and many of these gambles are valuable to society. Where would we be without new businesses and new ideas?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you are old enough to remember that far leftist ideological organizations were often violent up until the last quarter of the 20th century. This period of peacefulness is a recent phenomenon. One of the big pacifiers of democracy is that people accept the result because the majority voted for it. When you have a situation when 46% of the population is pushing an agenda that at least 48% of the population…
>When you have a situation when 46% of the population is pushing an agenda that at least 48% of the population is strongly against. That group often starts to look for alternative ways to flex its majority power. 46% and 48% of voters, not of the population. Neither voting block are a majority of the population. I would argue this particular part of our current political climate is largely pushed by a minority, and i…
Is it really that surprising there is a fair amount of visible decent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are ways to making this work. Sadly, none applies to dollar. One solution. Make dollars worthless, unless they have been stamped with a stamp, for the current month. Basically force people to pay taxes on money. Say you have to pay 10% of the value. Got 2bil, congrats. You are paying $200 million each month.
Inequality isn't there because the rich hoard actual dollar bills in their basement. What you suggest would affect the poor and middle class more than the rich.
I don't think poor/middle class would be that badly affected. With money taxed, you have a lot of incentive to give that money away, to avoid paying cost.