Whats wrong with being billionaire?
>NOOOO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO AMASS WEALTH FOR YOURSELF YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO BE A POOR EXPLOITED WORKER GETTING ABUSED BY CAPITALISTS!!!! KNOW YOUR PLACE PEASANT!!!!
Being an abuser fucks you up just as much as being abused itself, which is why most abusers were abused themselves, the healthy idea is to end the cycle or at least temper it as much as possible
kill them
That they exist.
>>819375>GETTING ABUSED BY CAPITALISTSwho's doing the abusing? who's doing the abusing anon?
theyre all death cultist cokeheads with delusions of grandeur
There isn't anything wrong, that doesn't mean they won't be shot or sent to prison
>>819377>Being an abuser fucks you up just as much as being abused itself, which is why most abusers were abused themselves, the healthy idea is to end the cycle or at least temper it as much as possibleDirect abusers get fucked but if it's through a system and far away, they get to keep their sanity
>>822476>Direct abusers get fucked but if it's through a system and far away, they get to keep their sanityyes this is why they replaced direct plantation slavery with intercontinental capitalist imperialism. where the people getting worked to death for your computer and chocolate are far away. stanley milgram experiment proved this is true because most people are willing to shock someone to death as long as they don't have to see the victim screaming and twitching. drone warfare also proves this. make it into a video game and little chudjaks will join and double tap first responders.
>>822495think of it like humans vs. orcs
>>819377>the healthy idea is to end the cycleMental sickness outlets
>>819375the ultra rich ARE evil because they make people suffer without even enjoying it or needing it, their motivation to keep accumulating capital stopped being survival or freedom, they are alredy free, you are objectively free the moment your monthly passive income is enough to get a comfy lifestyle without going to work.
I can consider a millionaire, a small capitalist, a petit bouj, a daytrader, a youtuber, an artist, or someone living off stock market dividends a good person because they just want to have a good time in life and not do soul sucking labour, their motivations are pure, they just want to enjoy life and that is not evil at all.
now when your whole motivation is to increase the gap for no reason or think other people being free takes away from your freedom you become evil. making 10k a month without working is not evil, working all day to make millions all day is evil.
>>822522and before some commuuyghur calls me idealist or moralist, go fuck yourself, virtue exists, morality exists, choices are real, free will is real.
I'm still a leftist but I will not buy the bullshit lie that the human race are just flesh robots, many upper class people and small capitalists just want to live in peace, have good food, have comfort, not get told what to do, they don't want to enslave the human race with AI and permarape every institution into the ground.
>>822493Drone operators actually exhibit the same PTSD symptoms frontline soldiers do
>>822538virtue exists, morality exists, choices are real, free will is real
yeah I said it again stirnerfag, refute me
>>822522>make people suffer without even enjoying it or needing itThis is a poor people thing and not the rich people doing it. All of the rekt in 4/gif/ is produced by poor people.
>>822538Stirnerism is tard tier
>>822548poor people are literally more animalistic and less concious BECAUSE they are poor, I'm not excusing evil and criminal actions from poor people but I can understand it more if your life is hell.
billionaires are true evil because they literally suck the blood out of the world.
>>822523>>822523>virtue exists, morality exists, choices are real, free will is real.Lmao none of these are real you absolute tard.
>>822564must me nice to be 16
>>819375For one thing, they got their money by basically stealing it from their workers and using that ill-gotten money to generate more money when they didn't do any of the work that actually created their company's value.
t. see pictures.
>>822561>poor people are literally more animalistic and less concious BECAUSE they are poor, I'm not excusing evil and criminal actions from poor people but I can understand it more if your life is hell.>billionaires are true evil because they literally suck the blood out of the world.Rich people are financially fit and live more intentionally. Poverty eats chunks of itself.
There's nothing wrong with being a billionaire… so long as its achieved fairly. Doesn't the government subsidise these guys? That's cheating the market.
>>822568As an egoist, why would you care about theft?
>>822585>then not a single billionaire has achieved it "fairly"They're the only people that get shit done. Everyone else thinks that fitness is fascism.
>>822594useful idiot award, frontline meatshield award, billionnaire in 5500 years award
>>822585But where is the unfairness?
All these men are shareholders in companies which must have began small and then developed over decades by investment. If we take the tech billionaires like Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos and Gates - these men started their companies, retained majority shareholder position, and from the investment of others, were allowed to become wealthy. Some of the billionaires on your list are also heirs, like Thomson, and so generational assets are passed on. The Thomson Corporation began as a single Newspaper in 1934, and now covers Reuters.
>>822581Is socialism when the government does stuff?
>>822609i dont really have any reason to oppose someone becoming wealthy through hard work or even owning a small company, but you literally could not become a billionaire through hard work, by definition it involves seizing other peoples wealth and restricting competition, plus no single person should ever have so much power over society. these guys have more wealth than entire fucking cities
>>822611>seizing other people's wealthCan you provide an example of this?
Investors willingly put money into a company to let it grow.
>restricting competitionIf you mean winning the market, then sure, but that usually just makes you the best option for people. Governments imposed anti-trust laws to free up competition in the early 20th century, the same way there are different margins for corporation tax based on the share of profit.
>no single person should ever have so much power over societyPower isn't the same thing as money, unless you make them equal.
>>822612even ignoring the value stolen from its workers, companies steal from each other and sabotage each other all the time, there is no "fair" competition especially when we are looking at massive monopolies that themselves own multiple different companies and can either screw their smaller competitors over or just buy them out.
acting like a monopoly is naturally the best option because they "outcompeted" other companies is hilarious considering how often they will use illegal means to achieve their position and how after they obtain it they will just cut costs and make the final product worse because why the fuck not? its not like people can do anythinf about it. this is what companies do with basic services like water, electricity or transportation once its privatised.
>Power isn't the same thing as money, unless you make them equal.how is it not equal? elon musk has more wealth than entire republics. do you think he has the same power as your average citizen?
>>822522>the ultra rich ARE evil because>>822561>billionaires are true evil because they literally suck the blood out of the world.They're not evil, they're just rich normies. Once in a while the billionaire descends and decides to plap a couple of plebs.
>>822613>companies steal from each other and sabotage each other all the timeDo you have any examples?
>there is no "fair" competitionWhy not?
>monopoly is naturally the best option because they "outcompeted" other companiesBut they did… There are better and worse options for consumers.
>will use illegal meansAgain, you need to provide actual examples.
>they will just cut costs and make the final product worseAnd if there's a better option, wouldn't people prefer that?
>how is it not equal?Because Elon Musk does not command the US military, does he?
>do you think he has the same power as your average citizen?You tell me - what would make him more powerful than others?
>>822612>Power isn't the same thing as moneyMoney is quite literally a type of power. It is the (expendable) power to acquire things or coerce people. The more money you have the more things you can acquire and the more people you can coerce. This is extremely obvious. Are you genuinely stupid?
>>822619>Because Elon Musk does not command the US military, does he?Again, are you actually retarded? Do you think because someone lacks one particular power this is an argument against them being powerful in general? Do you think anyone's impressed by this pseudo-Socratic one-liner bs? Do you have any idea how moronic you sound asking these "clever" rhetorical questions that any 5-year-old would know how to respond to?
>>822619>And if there's a better option, wouldn't people prefer that?there is no better option when one side controls the entire market. see pic related. youre ignoring human nature and acting like capitalists wouldnt take advantages when its in their rational self interests to do so. why would i follow rules when another company that isnt can just outcompete me? is there a single reason why capitalists should play nice, other than "i said so"?
>You tell me - what would make him more powerful than others?he bought himself a seat in government and used it to steal public funds and benefit his companies directly. idk if the average mom and pop shop owner could do that, but maybe they *could*, if they worked hard enough, right?
you dont even need to be the richest person in the world to get ahead. AIPAC manages to keep all of US congress in its hands with a few tiny bribes, they managed to make boycotting israel illegal in most US states without needing to try very hard. how the fuck are you equal to them? can you just bribe your local congressman and convince him to pass a law making it illegal to call you fat?
>>822624You are not distinguishing power (e.g. the command of physical force) from the command of commodities. Elon is richer than Trump, but is he more powerful? So, money is not power. And for the rest, you have nothing besides impotent insults. Go back to the drawing board.
>>822625>controlling the entire marketCan you give a single case of one company controlling everything?
It's the government which establishes singular control, by precisely taking things out of the market. It's curious; you don't think monopoly is bad, so long as an entity called "the government" does it, do you?
>follow rulesIt's clear that you're never going to actually provide a single example of companies acting illegally to get ahead.
>to steal public funds and benefit his companies directlyMy original post concerned government subsidies, didn't it?
>AIPACAIPAC is not the largest PAC, in a list of many - go through the years:
https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/top-pacs/2024Millions are fundraised by independent donations.
Political donations in all Western nations have to be logged.
Along with AIPAC is also PAL PAC for Palestine:
https://pal.vote/candidatesSo if you want to donate, it's up to you. Same for AIPAC:
https://candidates.aipacpac.org/page/featured/At the end of the day though, each citizen has the same vote. If AIPAC puts up puppets, they can only lose money if their candidate loses. If people don't care about opposing Israel (especially for local government), then you only get the leaders you deserve, in any case.
>>822625>>822629For more, we can compare revenues of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and AIPAC to see that NAR "bribed" more than AIPAC:
<Revenue: $328 million (2022)<Expenses: $306 million (2022)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Realtors<Revenue: $156,448,717 (2023–24)<Expenses: $100,363,669 (2023–24)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC >>822629>completely ignored half of my post because he cant respondi thought you were just doing a fun mental exercise to see if people here could actually defend their views, but youre apparently an actually retarded neolib. welp
>>822631I'm just explaining reality to you, and asking you to justify your comments, but you just can't do it. I would request you refrain from such milquetoast, populist rubbish in future and do your own research.
>>822632uygha your reality is one where the average citizen holds just as much power as the richest man in the world. when i gave you concrete examples of companies and billionaires abusing power you literally ignored it
this is not an ideological question btw, its a question of actually going outside and interacting with the world. anyone, left or right, will recognise that rich people have power in society, so unless youre very sheltered you should also be able to at least concede on this basic fact of society
>>822633>abusing powerBy donating to candidates?
As I say, if its a bad candidate, people will either be too apathetic to opppse them, or would prefer them over a worse candidate. Tens of millions of people vote in general elections in all Western countries; AIPAC doesn't pay them to do so. You could say that there's a limited amount of candidates and might prefer a parliamentary model (such as found in the framework of Congress), but until people vote for independents and third-party candidates, there will be no success. If you know the history of the Democrats, for example, it was brought about by various coalitions, moderating any extremism, as a means to oppose the rising Republican opposition. Many people here profess to despise electoralism, but they will also prefer a Democrat over a Republican - it's a "one party state" until it isn't, apparently. So, you have certain cynical conclusions, but what are you suggesting instead? I am being realistic - until the masses care enough to vote for independents, there can be no actual alternative. I never decided that.
>power in societyYou are throwing around this word "power" without qualification.
A rich man's vote is worth the same as a poor man's, is it not?
>>822640pass a law benefitting you then we can talk
>>822643Do labour laws benefit or harm working people?
>>822644>working people>pluralbut if everyones equal i should be able to raise my own salary just by calling a senator?
>>822646So you refuse to answer questions again?
If we lived in a world where Elon Musk could just steal money, you would have proof of it. If he could just call a politician to pay workers $1/hr, we would have proof of it. Notice that you are constantly asserting things without evidence. As I say, please do some research.
>>822647pass legislation favouring you right now. im refreshing CNN waiting for it to hit my feed
>>822649All laws are voted in by the mass of an electorate.
All laws are drafted as bills by Representatives, and if they're passed by the Senate, they become laws - for both the State and Federal level. This is basic civics. You are making politics an individualist fantasy.
In any case, it's clear that you are a deeply unserious person who has no patience for reality, but who instead lives in slogans and hearsay. This is shown by your assertion without evidence. I hope you at least know this and aren't also lying to yourself, even if you're lying to others.
>>822651you still havent done it?
also i find it really funny how you had to look up how congress works in chatgpt.
>>822659i guess looking it up on youtube is better than chatgpt
>>822662>A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the timeSo, when 20% of "elites" (unspecified) agree to something, it has an 18% chance of passing as policy reform, and when 80% of "elites", it has a 45% chance of passing. Why not 80%?
>Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.Obviously - status quo politicians aren't liable to sway policy either way. The complaint here is that there are just bad candidates.
>>822664>So, when 20% of "elites" (unspecified) Picrel
>Why not 80%?status-quo bias
>Obviously - status quo politicians aren't liable to sway policy either way.are le status quo politicians manifesting out of thin air? maybe american political system unproportionally influenced by elites favoring status quo (and in 45% new shitty laws ) and status quo politicians
and most important part
<The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. >>822538The gun's a spook
>>822674>>822660Boys, if I invented a chan where discussions are tethered to facts and an endgame was defined, would you join? Or am I just solving spooks here?
>>822674It's up to people to elect the candidates they want.
As I have explained, most marginal and extreme candidates get absorbed into moderate coalitions to achieve electability, and so you get stuck with centrist, status quo politicians. When people demand change but aren't politically inclined to work for it, it's just fantasy. What people apparently want is a benevolent dictatorship which takes away political agency - there are surely worse things in the world.
>>822680>It's up to people to elect the candidates they want.<To win a Senate seat in 2012, candidates had to raise $14,351 every single day. Just .05% of Americans donate more than $10,000 in any election
>As I have explained, most marginal and extreme candidates get absorbed into moderate coalitions to achieve electability, and so you get stuck with centrist, status quo politicians.not bug but a feature
>What people apparently want is a benevolent dictatorship which takes away political agency - there are surely worse things in the world.>which takes away political agency<The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. >>822688these are the same people who accuse leftists of being utopians when their entire ideology rests on the assumption that people with unlimited power will just play nice and obey arbitrary unenforced rules.
the very idea of companies forming a cartel is completely unimaginable to the neolib mind, so they simply close their eyes and pretend like theyre not seeing it. its genuinely the most childish ideology in the world
>>822688<To win a Senate seat in 2012, candidates had to raise $14,351 every single day.They don't "have" to - that's just how much is given in sponsorship; which is nominally said to act as marketing or advertising funds for voters. That's what people say; the masses will only vote for those who are advertised the most - in that case, most people are politically unserious, which is commonly known. My point is that an unserious group of voters gets you unserious candidates.
>not bug but a featureIt's a feature of partisan politics.
Much of politics is based around single issues, like abortion.
<The preferences of the average AmericanAmerica is not a direct democracy.
Representative democracies vote in representative politicians.
A lack of good representatives must come from uninformed voters.
In all this, the buck stops with the electorate. They have the power - but with great power comes great responsibility - maybe too much?
>They don't "have" to
<the average member of Congress spends between thirty and seventy percent of their time seeking money
>that's just how much is given in sponsorship
gotcha candidates just burn money and dont convert it into votes
>My point is that an unserious group of voters gets you unserious candidates.
maybe voters are unserious because
<The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
>It's a feature of partisan politics.
its a feature of bourgeois democracies and in the American context its amplified by gerrymandering, media monopolies and direct financial influence of elites benefitting from the status quo
>America is not a direct democracy. Representative democracies vote in representative politicians.
and its not really a democracy
>A lack of good representatives must come from uninformed voters.
>must
le lib Bible says so?
why would there exist informed voters in system opposed on all levels to such concept?
>They have the power - but with great power comes great responsibility - maybe too much?
<The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
>>822647> As I say, please do some research.There is it, the cry of a right-winger, whenever a right-wing liberal says "Do some research" they actually mean "Agree with me and my idiotic ideas". And people have already gave you evidence about how the system is rigged for the people who control the means of production in our capitalist system, you just keep ignoring it because you don't want to admit that you're wrong.
>>822725Name a single thing I've been incorrect on.
You are all arguing from rhetoric, while I am being reasonable, which is also why all you can do is impotently insult, and never counter.
>>822709You can't literally buy votes.
And if you believe this, you must support taking away suffrage from these people, because they have no political agency, obviously.
>its a feature of bourgeois democraciesNo, its partisanship.
I request you look up the history of the two-party system.
A democratic socialist who is nonetheless a hardliner on abortion will vote for a Republican candidate. The same thing with immigration, etc.
>its not really a democracyHundreds of millions of citizens decide who is elected.
It is a democracy, even if you despise the results.
>informed votersIf the system is so opposed to political education, how did you slip through the cracks? All you are saying is that you are better than the masses, which may be true - but in that case, you're not a democrat. Democracies lead to moderate and unsatisfying compromises, since a democracy means managing millions of different types of people.
>>822896>You can't literally buy votes.you cant directly buy ELECTORAL votes because one main aspects of liberal "democracy" is illusion of how important voting is (surprise-surprise not really) as tool of placation
but WAIT there is
<picrelalso which votes exactly you cant buy? electoral or senatorial? cos lobbying exists
and even then you dont need to buy votes because money in this instance is participation fee for engaging in theater of le democracy
<To win a Senate seat in 2012, candidates had to raise $14,351 every single day.<the average member of Congress spends between thirty and seventy percent of their time seeking moneyelites sponsor politicians->politicians get elected via money converted into political power (the campaign, the ads, the consultants, the media coverage)->politicians defend and promote elites' interests
therefore you are buying the candidate and policies
>And if you believe this, you must support taking away suffrage from these people>Huh, you think capitalism is le bad?! Therefore you must support feudalism.nice one
>No, its partisanship.Also an essential structural feature of bourgeois democracies as class societies dominated by capitalists
>I request you look up the history of the two-party system.And I request that you stop making retarded assertions and form an argument tethered to factual proof not some limpwristed notion of "le educate yourself"
>A democratic socialist who is nonetheless a hardliner on abortion will vote for a Republican candidate. The same thing with immigration, etc.nice hypothetical i guess? can you support empirically?
>Hundreds of millions of citizens decide who is elected.and it doesnt matter because
<The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.so hundreds of millions of citizens can decide which color of m&m is tastiest with the same result
>It is a democracy, even if you despise the results.so says lib BIble
>If the system is so opposed to political education, how did you slip through the cracks? my INDIVIDUAL consciousness is not determined by SOCIAL being of United SnaKKKes of AmeriKKKa i.e. im not retarded and not an american
>All you are saying is that you are better than the masses, which may be true - but in that case, you're not a democrat.im saying that it isnt a fault of "le unserious voters" or "le bad politicians" but a structural issue of political system made by elites and for elites
and ye im not a demonrat but a PROUD CARD CARRYING REPUBLICAN
>Democracies lead to moderate and unsatisfying compromisesno shit
>since a democracy means managing millions of different types of people.lmao every other political system le "managing millions of different types of people"
thing is LIBERAL "democracies" lead to "managing millions of different types of people" by one particular type of people, a class, you could say
and not to a governance by the people as demos and kratos would imply
Unique IPs: 38