Not that I’m particularly against that - quite the opposite, in fact. But I’m wondering if anyone sees, or had seen a path to social and climate recovery/progress that could occur without first eradicating the class of people who most enjoy the present status quo.
This post is as bad as the stuff on exploding heads. I have an idea, let’s not plan on murdering people based on their gender, class, race, or any other circumstance.
So what you’re saying is, you believe there is a solution?
Can your share a general outline, at least?
No, I haven’t thought about actively preventing the mass murder of people who have more than me.
This nihilistic worldview, expressed by you and the others commenting and downvoting me will kill more than the 1 percenters.
It’s not people who have more than you, it’s people who have more than everyone else combined! At one point (not sure of current numbers) SEVEN people had more wealth between tham than the poorest fifty percent.
That’s 7 people vs 350 000 000 000 people.
Are any of those seven people really more than fifty billion times more valuable than a homeless child in Delhi?
I mean, take all their money so that they’re no longer billionaires.
I think it’s possible they might have an opinion on that subject, perhaps loosely phrased as “over my dead body”
While I’d say that it is absolutely the case that the ruling class must be eliminated before there can be meaningful change, since they’re too far removed from common life (or sanity for that matter) to make any of the necessary concessions of their own volition, I think it’s undeniably the case that a rational society cannot be built by people who believe that killing people is an acceptable approach to problems.
I think the only hope is that our descendants, when they rebuild civilization out of the rubble we leave behind, will do a better job of it - at the very least, that they’ll know better than to let psychopaths gain power.
That suggests, though, that societal progress can only occur once they ARE dead, or at least disenfranchised beyond any hope of recovery (and presumably a lot of other people dead too, if civilization is reduced to ruins)
But I would challenge the assertion that people willing to kill (or, I guess, order it to be done) are unable to improve upon current society. If certain individuals are impeding society from advancement, and the only viable solution to their removal is one of violence, simply seeing that to be the case and being willing to take those actions doesn’t necessarily mean their vision of society is a flawed one (though I will admit, it does make for a reasonable inductive argument of that conclusion)
But if, as you say, the ruling class must first be removed before positive change can take place, that suggests that either the only path to improvement is through such extreme means, or else there is no path to a better society.
Well, there may be a solution, but it does involve eugenics and wars about those eugenics and we’ll have to wait another 40 years for things to actually start to get better, but then we get to boldly go places. Also Irish reunification.
Does eating the billionaires count as murder?/s
But seriously though, eliminating bad actors should be the first step. Otherwise they will just drag their heels into the ground preventing any real progress for whatever reason they have. Whether it be greed, malice, or just plain old stupidity.
Death will likely be involved at some point realistically. Either by people refusing to go peacefully, or by a lack of action by the people resulting in groups dying for things like heat stroke/freezing to death, starvation, general unrest.
I wish that things like that wouldn’t happen, but I won’t be surprised if it does.
