Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you can also get relatively rich by marrying a monster- aka the state?
How does that work? I don’t get the analogy
essentially: gubrment bad
Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
231–240 of 378 posts
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#232Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word I wanted to reach for was Nazi but I toned it down
[flagged]
You should understand language before debating vocabulary. I am quite well read on political philosophy and history, and I will continue to call out fascists when I see people talking like fascists.
Rhetorically, what you're doing is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I personally don't like calling out things like this when I see them because it's not a logical fallacy as much as bad rhetoric, but in this case I think it's warranted.
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sociopath part is what allows one to do what it takes to get ultra rich in the first place. Other than Gates, not one comes to mind who gives anything to charity, for example (yes, I’m sure one or two exists).
And at level that Gates operates charity of itself is form of power and influence. Not rich people spending money on these things is bad. But sometimes I just question motivations as a whole.
my understanding too was that his (ex)wife told him, basically, "what are young going to do with all of this?"
like he has literally everything he needs, and there is this massive number -- do something, anything with it. You have unlimited time, so chose to do something
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well you could have stronger constitutional protections. Say certain changes needing unanimous support from voters in referendum. Would lock in things, but would remove risks. And USA already disallows voting based on age. And somehow lot of people find it acceptable. Surely voting should be right from birth?
Alright, what about laws that only levy income taxes on people making $300k or more? That's eliminates millions of Americans without targeting any protected groups. There's no bulletproof method to allow only some people to vote that wouldn't be abused to disenfranchise others. Also, surely you don't think a four year old should weigh in on who gets to represent them in Congress? We disallow voting on a minimum age,…
That is why I said taxes. Not just income tax.
And really why should not 4 year old get to decide? How come you think it is right to discriminate against them based on their age? As you said there is no limit on those with limited mental faculties due to old age. So why have one for young age? Isn't it clearly an unacceptable form disenfranchisement? Or are you saying some forms of that are absolutely acceptable and even justified?
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#236Money is power. That is the problem with extreme wealth. It provides unaccountable power outside the democratic process. It is not surprising that an already powerful man wants even more power, but I do not understand why anyone else would go along with this.
This sentiment is pretty popular amongst some of the younger working people... they work, pay a lot of taxes for everything, and then get outvoted by pensioners who retired under "old" laws and now get a higher pension than they ever earned while working (i'm talking from a position of government pensions, not the american save-for-yourself style). So, old people vote and decide, and young people get the bill for tha…
My phrasing of it is that democracy is underpinned by a shared belief in a collective destiny. If we all vote well, we all do well together and if we vote poorly then we all do poorly together, on average.
Thus it feels like breaking that contract to have a substantial block of voters who will not only be recipients of increased benefits without ever having to pay more, but can run benefits programs into the ground and kill them without worry because they’ll die before that happens.
They don’t have any skin in the game. They stand to benefit, but never really lose.
I’ve not really worked that into a functional idea, though. The gist of my thought process is that you shouldn’t be able to vote on things where the delay on systemic issues occurring is beyond your life expectancy. So I could vote to change social security today, but probably not when I retire.
I have no idea how to quantify that delay in any reasonably objective way, though, and that’s where my idea falls apart.
It seems likely to become another political dog and pony show where the parties try to get arbitrary age cutoffs to get a demographic advantage. The idea that it would force parties to cater to younger voters more is interesting but I’m not sure a net positive. The impacts are too wide for me to gauge any kind of third order effects.
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#237> one that would strip voting rights from anyone who pays no income tax It could be an interesting thought experiment to consider the second and third order consequences, even if, from first principles this is a non-starter in a democratic society. First off all, what percent of people do not pay any taxes on income? What portion of them are poor vs. hedge fund managers or other super wealthy people who have structur…
> even if, from first principles this is a non-starter in a democratic society.
This is a strange phrase - initially you had to either own land (therefore pay tax) or else if you lived in a city and didn't own land but paid sufficient tax[1], to vote in the early United States. Only taxpayers voting was our first principles! We only changed it later.
[1] I'm simplifying slightly because different states handled this differently
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#23850% of Americans think taxes are too high, the other 50% think taxes need to be higher so they’ll get a larger refund. It’s not a sustainable system. A better solution would be to change tax law so a “payer” can’t receive a larger refund than what they paid. No more credits, only deductions.
The majority of americans think their taxes need to be lower, and the taxes for the rich need to be higher.
Majority of Americans pay little to no taxes.
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but please google first on what Mussolini preached. State-owned corporazioni are nothing like privately operated businesses of today. Don’t hang on the word. The correct word you are looking for is plutocrat, indeed.
The word I wanted to reach for was Nazi but I toned it down
Whatever you’re reaching for, you’re reaching for a wrong thing. Go back to school, crème de la crème of the society my ass.
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#240Except everyone pays taxes. It's in everything that is bought at any given time.
Obviously this asshole does not mean it like that. What he means is that only rich assholes like him should get to vote.
If we are in the phase of just spitballing shit that should be considered unacceptable in a society where we are meant to coexist, I would spitball the idea that the time for his neck to meet the guillotine is long overdue.