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

Showerthoughts

30049 readers
1349 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
[โ€“] dotslashme@infosec.pub 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think I see what you mean now. We both agree that wealth hoarding need to go, but I think I focus more on the problems it would cause and you just wanting to set a limit and deal with any issues as they arise. Is that a correct assumption?

[โ€“] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think we are imagining the problem, the solutions and the consequences in different ways.

You're worried about the possibilities of what could be and imagine the problems it may cause.

I'm worried about what is happening now, what exists today and the problems it is causing in real time.

If we do nothing, then current problems persist and we avoid the uncertainty of alternatives. The only problem with that is that we will never realize what the alternatives could be ... either a more manageable society with more distributed power ... a repeat of the same system we live in today but with the power given to different actors ... or a far worse situation than we live in today.

None of this is to imagine that it would create an instant utopia or dystopia ... we are human and many of the social problems we have today will persist no matter what we create in the future.

So the final thought is ... We either gamble on the certainty of inequality and power willingly given to those with the most wealth ... or we take the chance on attempting to create a new system.