this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
604 points (89.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

30049 readers
1346 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
vatlark@lemmy.world
forkball@lemmy.world
quinten@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
604
Almost every problem in the world would be dealt with meaningfully if we outlawed billionaires. (lemmy.ca)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by ininewcrow@lemmy.ca to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
174 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Everytime I look at small problems or big global problems, if you follow the money trail, it all leads to some billionaire who is either working towards increasing their wealth or protecting their wealth from decreasing.

Everything from politics, climate change, workers rights, democratic government, technology, land rights, human rights can all be rendered down to people fighting another group of people who defend the rights of a billionaire to keep their wealth or to expand their control.

If humanity got rid of or outlawed the notion of any one individual owning far too much money than they could ever possibly spend in a lifetime, we could free up so much wealth and energy to do other things like save ourselves from climate change.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TBi@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You should look into ranked voting. You still only get one vote, just if your preferred candidate is eliminated you can propose your second/third choice as well. This allows you to vote with your morals but also strategically.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -4 points 8 months ago

This isn’t correct

You get 1 vote but you’re giving points to the 1st/2nd/3rd option

Most people differ on first option so someone politically between the two usually gets to win

The hopeful outcome is that you get candidates further left or right than what is presently available even though they wouldn’t win