• @SirDerpy
    link
    16 months ago

    If I were in a position of power I’d hopefully willingly give up some privacy. But, no law can sit in judgement, let alone something so simple.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      26 months ago

      Agreed. Also to add, it’s much better than having almost no power and almost no privacy like right now.

      Besides, maybe you can think of another way to restrain the accumulationists at the top of society.

      Right now being a billionaire is zero risk, zero downside. It’s not a trade-off but a strict upgrade from the middle class. No wonder the billionaires are insane and detached from reality.

      So either risk (like randomly executing some of them every year), or a downside, or both have to be added to the equation to keep the top of the society in check.

      • @SirDerpy
        link
        16 months ago

        Taxes, government ownership, or communal ownership. For example, tax all wealth above $100m at 100%.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Taxes can be imposed after the billionaires are afraid to bribe the government.

          Right now there is zero risk, zero downside for a billionaire to finance elections, offer revolving door opportunities, control via ownership almost all the media. Also zero risk, zero downside for the public officials to whore themselves out. All the political whores are walking and jetting around in safety and in luxurious comfort. Why would these folks change their behaviours?

          Right now when a government official renegs on their promises, there is zero risk, zero downside. Politicians can promise to raise taxes on the superrich and just never do it, and zero risk, zero downside.

          • @SirDerpy
            link
            16 months ago

            Well, privacy can be infringed as a motivator after tax and campaign finance reform. Prison is a bigger motivator.