• StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    They don’t have money. They have debt and stock. Their money is a whole other tier of pretend that we’re too poor to have access to.

    • Don_alForno@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Stocks are assets are money.

      The pretend we’re collectively falling for is that you can’t tax those assets because they’re somehow not really there until they want them to be.

  • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    We don’t need their money to pay for any of that, not providing them is an exclusively political choice.

    The only justification needed to take their money is because them having it is an existential crisis for society.

    It should be proportionally more expensive to remain rich.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Liberté! égalité! fraternité!

    Leeja Miller notes historically wealth accumulated by the aristocratic elite is never restored back to the public (that is, back to the state general fund, then used to sponsor roads, bridges, libraries, food programs, education, science, etc. which serve the public good) except through violence, e.g. the response of the French public after the États Généraux de 1789 )

    So this, along wirh discussions of the kind of reprisal the Luigi Mangioni may not have done, all tracks, considering the escalating clime in the United States.

    It’d sure be nice to find a nonviolent path to restoring creating public-serving government and a system that regards the personhood of absolutely everyone, but we very much cannot take violence off the table, especially when it comes to restoring wealth parity.

  • balderdash@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Online liberals will joke about eating the rich but get mad when protesters block traffic. Online liberals will joke about “the guillotine” but argue that destruction of property counts as “violence”.

    • Master@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Because blocking traffic doesnt hurt anyone except other lower class people forced to drive for their livelihood.

      Lets protest the rich by punishing the poor. Next well protest the rich by licking their boots. They’ll hate that for sure… Makes no sense.

        • Master@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          I’ve started to reply to this a few times but I dont think there is a “good” answer. Me personally I think strikes and boycotts are functional protest methods. They hurt innocent people just trying to survive but the difference is that they dont “just” hurt those people. They also hurt the rich at their bottom line.

          The real problem I have with traffic protests is that they dont actually do anything other than alienate the protesters. If you could do mass traffic protests so that it actually made a difference to outweigh the other side of the coin then it would be different. But you would need a nationwide organized protest. Which we are nowhere close to.

      • balderdash@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        There will be a lot of blocked traffic if we ever bring back the guillotines. Just be honest and say you don’t want to be inconvenienced.

        • Master@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          Nah, im all for eating the rich but dont punish working people with stupid protests. Protests that inconvenience people who you want to be on your side just turns them against you. If you want to lose the fight make everyone who supports you stop supporting you.

          You do you though.

  • Xande@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    There’s no real entertainment in this…

    let them fight to the death… and then let the animals in… If you want to know how to entertain MAGA folks… check out the ancient romans!

    • _AutumnMoon_@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Winner gets a dog park named after them, because they were eaten by wolves released into the pit after they defeated the other billionaires

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    I like it, but it needs some work to give it staying power. I say start with 1 billionaire, then once they’ve gotten a good, front-row whiff of the consequences, we start a blind bidding war for social services, a different one each episode. Whoever has the lowest bid gets a new and excruciating ending at the end of each episode. The one guy left standing at the end gives up his money for the final program, but gets to walk out alive.