Should billionaires exist? 「Yes or No」

[Kassaran]

The existence of billionaire’s themselves isn’t a bad thing, but the upper classes have an inherent obligation to improving the lives of the lower classes, and those of the upper class who fail to do so should be stripped of their status by the state

That's a disgusting and horrifying thought and I'm shocked that there are people who unironically believe what you just wrote.

[Alcala-Cordel]

The existence of billionaire’s themselves isn’t a bad thing, but the upper classes have an inherent obligation to improving the lives of the lower classes, and those of the upper class who fail to do so should be stripped of their status by the state

There's never been a good billionaire, and the state will be bent to do their bidding sooner or later. It must be the people who strip them of the wealth they have stolen.

[Greed and Death]

The existence of billionaire’s themselves isn’t a bad thing, but the upper classes have an inherent obligation to improving the lives of the lower classes, and those of the upper class who fail to do so should be stripped of their status by the state

No the heck I don't my only duty is to spend my money on frivolous pointless things.

[Adamede]

The existence of billionaire’s themselves isn’t a bad thing, but the upper classes have an inherent obligation to improving the lives of the lower classes, and those of the upper class who fail to do so should be stripped of their status by the state

There's never been a good billionaire, and the state will be bent to do their bidding sooner or later. It must be the people who strip them of the wealth they have stolen.

“The people” is generally a title assumed by the state, or wannabe state.
The state has been a constant since the arising of agriculture, it’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

[Alcala-Cordel]

There's never been a good billionaire, and the state will be bent to do their bidding sooner or later. It must be the people who strip them of the wealth they have stolen.

“The people” is generally a title assumed by the state, or wannabe state.
The state has been a constant since the arising of agriculture, it’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

I have n idea when proletarian revolution will occur. It's not really relevant to my point, though.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

You do not need to be a billionaire. You can survive on far less money than that, while people literally sleep in their shoes on the streets of Los Angeles.

[Kassaran]

You do not need to be a billionaire. You can survive on far less money than that, while people literally sleep in their shoes on the streets of Los Angeles.

A not insubstantial amount do so by their own volition. It isn't a hard life or a difficult life as water and basic food is plentiful and easy to get ahold of. What keeps them homeless is either an inability to substantially function in society or personal desire to not function in society.

[Duvniask]

You do not need to be a billionaire. You can survive on far less money than that, while people literally sleep in their shoes on the streets of Los Angeles.

A not insubstantial amount do so by their own volition. It isn't a hard life or a difficult life as water and basic food is plentiful and easy to get ahold of. What keeps them homeless is either an inability to substantially function in society or personal desire to not function in society.

Add this one to the list of people who should never be anyway near power.

[Picairn]

A not insubstantial amount do so by their own volition. It isn't a hard life or a difficult life as water and basic food is plentiful and easy to get ahold of. What keeps them homeless is either an inability to substantially function in society or personal desire to not function in society.

Generational poverty destroys your claim entirely.

[Adamede]

“The people” is generally a title assumed by the state, or wannabe state.
The state has been a constant since the arising of agriculture, it’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

I have n idea when proletarian revolution will occur. It's not really relevant to my point, though.

Your point is a pipe dream is the point.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You do not need to be a billionaire. You can survive on far less money than that, while people literally sleep in their shoes on the streets of Los Angeles.

A not insubstantial amount do so by their own volition. It isn't a hard life or a difficult life as water and basic food is plentiful and easy to get ahold of. What keeps them homeless is either an inability to substantially function in society or personal desire to not function in society.

"Not being able to function in society" is pretty close to the definition of a mental health disorder.

But I won't make that tired call for more mental health treatment. Both sides say that, but the fact is it takes half a decade to train a psychiatrist and no politician is going to be stupid enough to spend money on that, when the benefits will come half way through the next politician's term.

Nope, let's make the most of the psychiatrists we've got now. Get a big van, set up a soundproofed clinic inside it, and crawl the curb where there are homeless people. Fifteen minute consultations, give them a scrip and a coupon to fill it with. Maybe a hit of the drug of their choice, just so they feel good about it and follow through on the scrip. Books or something, for the ones who don't like drugs.

Sounds a bit inhumane I admit. Adding a pharmaceutical addiction to their other problems. But it's quick and relatively cheap, and it will help some of them. Those willing to help themselves.

Actually, that's the slogan I would like painted on the van. "Free Drugs: Help Yourself!"

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

The existence of billionaire’s themselves isn’t a bad thing, but the upper classes have an inherent obligation to improving the lives of the lower classes, and those of the upper class who fail to do so should be stripped of their status by the state

There's never been a good billionaire, and the state will be bent to do their bidding sooner or later. It must be the people who strip them of the wealth they have stolen.

There have been good billionaires, a social class hierarchy and class collaboration is necessary for all parts of society to function and propel a country forwards. To put it in Marxist terms, a capitalist system is the dictatorship of the bourgeoise, and a communist system is dictatorship of the proletariat. As both of these have proven to be failures, class collaboration seems like the only practical approach

[Ifreann]

There's never been a good billionaire, and the state will be bent to do their bidding sooner or later. It must be the people who strip them of the wealth they have stolen.

There have been good billionaires, a social class hierarchy and class collaboration is necessary for all parts of society to function and propel a country forwards. To put it in Marxist terms, a capitalist system is the dictatorship of the bourgeoise, and a communist system is dictatorship of the proletariat. As both of these have proven to be failures, class collaboration seems like the only practical approach

Abolish class.

[Alcala-Cordel]

There's never been a good billionaire, and the state will be bent to do their bidding sooner or later. It must be the people who strip them of the wealth they have stolen.

There have been good billionaires,

Name one.

a social class hierarchy and class collaboration is necessary for all parts of society to function and propel a country forwards.

No, that's not true at all.

To put it in Marxist terms, a capitalist system is the dictatorship of the bourgeoise, and a communist system is dictatorship of the proletariat. As both of these have proven to be failures, class collaboration seems like the only practical approach

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism, it's a transitionary phase. From the Critique of the Gotha Programme by Karl Marx:

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

The purpose of communism is to establish a classless society, not a dictatorship by any class.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

There have been good billionaires,

Name one.

a social class hierarchy and class collaboration is necessary for all parts of society to function and propel a country forwards.

No, that's not true at all.

To put it in Marxist terms, a capitalist system is the dictatorship of the bourgeoise, and a communist system is dictatorship of the proletariat. As both of these have proven to be failures, class collaboration seems like the only practical approach

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism, it's a transitionary phase. From the Critique of the Gotha Programme by Karl Marx:

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

The purpose of communism is to establish a classless society, not a dictatorship by any class.

Said society has never happened, and never will, because it’s fiction

[Firmora]

No.

Even millionaires are debatable, but billionaires are pests.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Name one.

No, that's not true at all.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism, it's a transitionary phase. From the Critique of the Gotha Programme by Karl Marx:

The purpose of communism is to establish a classless society, not a dictatorship by any class.

Said society has never happened, and never will, because it’s fiction

Said society sorta exists in some parts of the world, and more would exist if it weren't for imperialism.

[Northern Saxonia]

Yes, but I should be the only one.

[Fahran]

url=https://insulin.library.utoronto.ca/islandora/object/insulin%3AW10033]No,[/url] that's not true at all.

I already addressed the claim that humans have some intrinsic predisposition towards Kantian ethics. It's not the case and the studies you're citing do not demonstrate that.

[Fahran]

What did I just say?

I mean you can say it as much as you like, but it doesn't really translate into a distinction between value, cost, and price if we presume that value is solely the maximum amount an economic actor is willing to pay for a good or service. In fact, neoclassical economics more or less disposed with the notion of value as dramatically distinct from price in open and competitive markets.

Labor has no intrinsic value in Marxism. For Marx, value is a social relation that need not exist, and does not exist outside the realm of commodities.

True, but the fact remains that Marx distinguishes between economic value, which is arguably not dependent on the existence of a market for Ricardo and other classical economists, and exchange value. There's not really a good reason to conclude, as Marx does, that value is rooted in labor rather than the preferences of consumers. And clinging to classical economic theories in spite of evidence to bolster the assertion that Marxian exploitation is something that happens isn't really convincing unless we uncritically accept Marx's justification for why LTV doesn't seem to be true based on economic data.

What, then, do you achieve by saying "labor has no intrinsic value"? Because it is certainly not a refutation of Marx.

The second aspect of the argument is that labor has minimal impact on the actual value of a good or service. What matters is what the consumer will receive from a product and service, nothing more.

[Sanghyeok]

Name one.

No, that's not true at all.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism, it's a transitionary phase. From the Critique of the Gotha Programme by Karl Marx:

The purpose of communism is to establish a classless society, not a dictatorship by any class.

Said society has never happened, and never will, because it’s fiction

Has happened before, and we can certainly achieve it again.

[Fahran]

Has happened before, and we can certainly achieve it again.

A classless society has not been achieved in any effective or meaningful sense since we began down the road to diversified and divided labor in sedentary, agricultural societies. Even the prominent examples often trotted out may be characterized by chronic imperfections and social problems.

[Odreria]

The existence of billionaire’s themselves isn’t a bad thing, but the upper classes have an inherent obligation to improving the lives of the lower classes, and those of the upper class who fail to do so should be stripped of their status by the state

That's a disgusting and horrifying thought and I'm shocked that there are people who unironically believe what you just wrote.

how have you made it seven years if that's enough to shock and horrify you

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

You do not need to be a billionaire. You can survive on far less money than that, while people literally sleep in their shoes on the streets of Los Angeles.

A not insubstantial amount do so by their own volition. It isn't a hard life or a difficult life as water and basic food is plentiful and easy to get ahold of. What keeps them homeless is either an inability to substantially function in society or personal desire to not function in society.

"You are poor. Stop it."

[Crabaiaia]

For as long as the way to become rich is unrestricted and the distribution of wealth is required, I am fine with billionaires existing.