• eurodyne@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    OK, I definitely skipped your well of text (no offense) because I’m also very drunk and high. I also understand your point without needing to have it explained to me. That $5 million limit was absurdly low. Let’s raise it to $1 billion in personal assets.

    Does the entire calculus of your position change significantly at that point?

    Of course, I understand that it would require a massive structural restructuring of the entirety of society that would take decades upon decades. But a little bit of revolution, or a lot, is kind of the point here.

    Is it not?

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Ah, it was part rant that misinformation is difficult to disprove before it drops out of the public awareness. And that also applies to harmful policies: they are easier to bulldoze into action than a well thought out social/progressive policy.

      But I do agree that a “you have won capitalism for your generation and your children” wealth cap is needed.
      It’s probably like 10 million per person in the family, 5 million of liquid cash and 5 million of investment.
      Still very generous.

      And yeh. So many “please don’t riot or mob us to death” policies and mechanisms are also being suppressed, bypassed etc.
      If those are no longer useful, maybe a return to riots and mobs is in order

    • VoodooAardvark@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I just want to say I’m drunk and high and read neither of your messages beyond the first bit. I’m sure it was a deep and meaningful exchange though.