• mrfriki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    154
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    Can’t shake the feeling that swapping panels 1 and 3 would make more sense.

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    160
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 days ago

    the amount of billionaire taint licking in this post is depressingly high.

    the hilarious thing about these apologists is that the majority of the 1% wouldn’t even piss on them if they were on fire. we are beneath them.

    • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      10 days ago

      the hilarious thing about these apologists is that the majority of the 1% wouldn’t even piss on them if they were on fire. we are beneath them.

      You’re 100% wrong and you should ask the burned and executed corpses of the original BLM organizers if they were beneath notice.

    • Shizrak@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      This would be ideal but I’m skeptical that it’s actually possible. Bribes are cheaper than taxes, so I think they’d likely just prevent the taxes from happening by greasing the correct palms.

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        Well yeah, that’s exactly what’s happened for at least the past 50 years. In 1968 corporations were paying 53% of their profits in taxes, and billionaires were paying 94% around that time! Btw, if you’re making billions, paying 94% still leaves you richer than most…

        Contrast that to today, where the system is so obviously broken during a time when Amazon is paying less in total taxes than a fry cook at McDonald’s.

        It would need to be done with actually no loopholes, and meaningful enforcement of consequences for those who would try to cheat (perhaps the guillotine).

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          10 days ago

          one big issue is everyone goes “you can’t tax stocks!” and then billionaires take a loan against the stocks with the unrealized gains as collateral. So we’d need to start classifying a loan as a realized gain of the collateral against this, with an exception for mortgages on primary domiciles, maybe also a “first million dollars are exempt,” calculated on the full debt of the borrower, not per loan. I can’t imagine anyone taking out more than $1M in debt against a properly they don’t live in is not the rich we need to be taxing.

          • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            Yeah. Virtually anything with an exception for the first million dollars will both lose almost no tax revenue (as a percentage), and never ever touch the rest of us temporarily embarrassed not-quite-yet-billionaires.

          • crusa187@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            10 days ago

            That’s an insightful point, and honestly taxing those loans as realized gains sounds entirely reasonable. It’s good for the lenders because of reduced risk, it’s good for the rich because it keeps them honest, and it’s good for the public because we gain increased tax revenue from those who can most afford it. Nice!

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 days ago

          Contrast that to today, where the system is so obviously broken during a time when Amazon is paying less in total taxes than a fry cook at McDonald’s.

          Wait…by percentage, or by dollar amount?

          • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 days ago

            Dollar amount for some markets and some years - big corps do accounting magic and end up net negative, which they can calculate against profits in another fiscal year under some circumstances, paying 0% tax

      • Emi@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 days ago

        Don’t they already just avoid paying taxes by not having a salary and just using bank loans or something? So they have no actual money in the bank

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      I think people would be okay with taxing them away, as well. It could be fine to give an either-or option to each billionaire, even.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      they will just come up with another new deal to temporarily calm us down.

      then work on better propaganda to keep us submissive in the meantime.

  • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 days ago

    Every healthy society requires a robust guillotine maintenance capability, ideally across all competencies.

  • Narri N.@lemmy.autism.place
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 days ago

    I support this idea. Invite most of the world’s nations’ leaders, too. I think the Met-gala attendees and G20 summit attendees might be a good starting point all-in-all. Then seize the means of production etc., you know how it goes.

      • saruwatarikooji@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 days ago

        Yes, although IIRC she was sort of sponsored to go. She didn’t pay for her seat or dress… I’m not sure we should hold that against her too much. Still don’t like that she went but when someone else foots the bill? Fuck it, go have fun.

    • timestatic@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 days ago

      Oh yeah and then what. The Worlds 20st richest countries leaders are dead. The world is in chaos and you think communism would solve all problems, just like it did in China, the Soviet Union or Cuba. The people there have no problems right. Violent fanatism jippie!

      • Narri N.@lemmy.autism.place
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        final edit: I wrote some words here, quite a lot of them actually, accusing you of many things. Now that I’ve slept and am calm(er at least) I realize I am in the wrong here. If you got to read my message, I apologize for the words. Violence should never be the answer, because it breeds more violence most likely towards the innocents. That is the difference between this place and Hell, because in Hell there are no innocents. In any case, for what it’s worth: I am sorry for going rabid, and striving only to insult you while projecting some of my own insecurities on you. I don’t even know you.

  • hOrni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    I’m for giving them a choice. The guillotine or we take away their money and make them work a minimum pay position in one of their factories for the rest of their lives. I’m pretty sure they would take the guillotine after a week.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    Billionaires use violence all the time to get what they want. Just because they hide behind layers of abstraction that they’ve set up, doesn’t mean they aren’t using violence.

  • timestatic@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    9 days ago

    Actually doing this would not only be immoral but just treat the symptoms of the downfalls of capitalism, not the cause. We need legislative change that has a proper social safety net, not violence LARPing.

    • Shizrak@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 days ago

      In a perfect world, that would be ideal. But for at least 50 years, capital has been buying the legislators and we’re backsliding even further from positive change. Without the threat, there’s no reason for them to let things change for the better for the rest of us.

  • nroth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    9 days ago

    This whole populism trend is concerning to me. I agree that some folks are more responsible than others for the problems we face today. Even so, singling out and blaming a small group of people for the problems we face, then punishing them with legislation, is not the most productive way forward. We need real, serious solutions. “Get rid of X” rarely, if ever, works.

    • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      “rarely”: so you admit sometimes the solution is “get rid of X” ? Then why would “get rid of billionaires” not be a solution for you ? To be clear I’m not saying we should kill them or physically hurt them in any way, we can simply reappropriate their wealth turning them into non-billionaire, also making it illegal for anyone to be a billionaire in the future. Why would that not work in your opinion ?

      • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        What we need to think about is how this works practically. A billionaire isn’t someone with a billion dollars in their bank account: it’s someone with a 50% share in a business with a market cap of $2bn. How do we address that fairly?

        Now I’d say that a business with a certain level of profitability owes something to its employees, such that very few businesses would reach that level of capitalisation.

        • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          I don’t see the issue, if we say 1 billion is too much (I would choose a lower maximum personally) if their wealth in any way or form is above the max, they have to sell a house or some asset, society in the form of the government (or whathever is in place) take the money to be used for public interest project. It’s really not that punishing, they would literally be the richest people, and they would still have plenty of money/asset to enjoy life. They don’t need more.

  • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    10 days ago

    You don’t need a mechanized execution machine to kill three people. You need it to kill the crowd of people.

    And historically that’s what it was used for. It was used BY the rich AGAINST the poor.

    • Obi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      10 days ago

      It was pretty much just one of the options used for death penalty from what I understand. Then there’s the revolution bit but otherwise it was a state execution method used as late as 1977.

  • NOVA DRAGON@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    153
    ·
    10 days ago

    This whole “kill the rich” thing is counterproductive and needs to stop. Advocating for murder has never been cool.

    • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      123
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      10 days ago

      I respectfully disagree.

      The ultra-rich aren’t shy about killing you or your loved ones if it makes them an extra million. There are exceptions, but they’re definitely not the rule.

      Tit for tat. We’re absolutely in a class war and the owner class has been winning for three or four consecutive decades. The inequality in society was lower during the French revolution than it is now. Hell, the pay Scrooge gave out in the old tale was more than minimum wage is today adjusted for inflation.

      I’m not saying we need violence, but I am saying we need the threat of violence for these kind of people to do their part. No one needs a billion dollars, let alone a trillion.

      • NOVA DRAGON@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        77
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        I also respectfully disagree. Tit for tat, taken to its logical conclusion, eradicates all life on the planet; if that’s your goal, fine, you can make that argument, but that’s ultimately a separate discussion. There were literal slaves and serfs around the time of the French Revolution—now you could make an argument that “wage slaves” or whatever exist in the first world, but that is pure abstraction when compared to the absolute widespread human suffering in France during the late 1700s. You would have to be entirely disconnected from reality to think that people, en masse, have it worse in first world countries than they did in France during the 1700s; that’s a “log off” moment, for sure. If you want to expand the scope to the world at large, then, yeah, there is some fucked up stuff going on, and people (millionaires, billionaires, &c. &c.) do hoard wealth, but murdering them is not the solution; that won’t even do anything to their accumulated wealth, as most of it is tied up in corporate assets; instead, harsh regulation needs to be enacted on the system that allows these people to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth. But instead, we have these very surface level takes that are just like “kill the billionaires”, which solves nothing and actually makes our side look insane, which hurts our cause—frankly, its stupid. Now, if you want to alter the claim to “the threat of violence is needed,” then I would be more inclined to agree; however, individually murdering certain billionaires is not productive; I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to match whatever vitriolic bullshit eye for an eye sentiment that these billionaires might have, and maybe that’s an idealistic take and naive, but it feels right.

        • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          50
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          have it worse in first world countries than they did in France during the 1700s

          In absolute terms? Definitely not. The lowliest “unskilled” worker today has vastly more amenities than even a 17th century nobleman could even dream of.

          In relative terms, however? The ultra-rich robbed you, me and every single other person on this planet. And to this you may retort that you do not care about wealth and are content with what you have. I would applaud such an answer, but it would be besides the point. What we’ve been systematically robbed of, is our time. Years, decades that could be spent enjoying your lives with our loved ones, instead spent slaving away at a desk or in a factory only to make the few who have everything even more. That, to me, is absolutely unforgivable, especially since I’ve long since past my physical prime and am still being robbed of this time against my will.

          Now, if you want to alter the claim to “the threat of violence is needed,” then I would be more inclined to agree; however, individually murdering certain billionaires is not productive;

          Again, I disagree. There are about ~2700 billionaires on earth out of ~8 billion people. Killing half of them and having that wealth redistributed would solve more problems than it would create. But if I do that, I’m thinking like said billionaires.

          Which is the only way to fight them. If you try the moral and legal route, you won’t stand a chance because you’ll be fighting within systems and rulesets they have created to give themselves every (unfair) benefit.

          Sometimes the disgruntled worker who shanks the boss is the hero we need.

          • timestatic@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 days ago

            Very idealistic to think that the redistribution of all that money wouldn’t just cause mass inflation! Also, mot of the money is tied up in companies. They don’t just have the money lying around. There would be no one to buy all these assets. I get the sentiment, that they make money from the work of their employees. At some point companies become to big to fail but when someone is starting a business the personal risks and investment someone takes to grow a company also should be respected.

            We don’t produce nearly enough for everyone to be get fully all the things they rely on while barely anyone works. Thats not how the economy would end up working. We need a social safety net, so no complete free market which is toxic but as much as I dislike some billionaires your proposal is just not realistic and fantizises violence without accomplishing anything

          • NOVA DRAGON@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            30
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            “killing half the billionaires and redistributing their wealth”

            Are we on the same planet right now? How are you going to do that? And if you kill them, how are you to ensure their wealth is redistributed properly, not just funneled back into their corporate shell company or their equally immoral families? The measure you’re proposing here requires a total overhaul of the system that is more unrealistic than a measured overhaul into more overall socialist systems of general wealth redistribution. I get that billionaires do harm to the planet and I get that that makes you, me, angry. but what you’re proposing here is just straight up murder and it’s unrealistic; It’s even more unrealistic than, say, everybody voting for a socialist and the systems entirely overhauled except you are adding extra steps of just killing all the billionaires on top of it. What I’m ultimately concerned about is the left going online and just saying kill billionaires while sitting in front of their computers doing literally nothing, making all of us look like psychopaths thus hurting our cause due to clear and obvious LARPing.

            but it’s obvious to me that I’m not going to change your mind. you can sit around and LARP on Lemmy all day, if you want, that’s fine. Ultimately, in an hour, I won’t care that we even had his conversation. I’m not going to change your mind, so this is going to be my last post regarding this subject, because I’m not going to change anybody’s mind on a far left leaning Lemmy community. I’m sorry I even posted my opinion.

            • notabot@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              10 days ago

              I just wanted to say thank you for voicing a clear, coherent rebuttal of the knee-jerk, emotional “kill 'em” reactions we see so much. You’re right that most who post that sort of thing are LARPing, and I really hope it’s just a way to let off steam, but I worry that someone might try to carry out the threat, and do incalculable harm to the left in the process.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          39
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          Despite the downvotes, you are correct.

          It’s asinine to even consider that a billionaire doesn’t have a will, let alone how awful it is to threaten a life.

          They’d just be dealing with a younger, more entitled billionaire, who now wants to get revenge on the people that murdered their parent or benefactor. See Lachlan Murdoch, Charles Koch, any of the Waltons, etc. for example.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              10 days ago

              How is recognizing the financial failsafes of billionaires empathetic? I’m employing logic.

              Did you miss the entire point of my comment because I also condemned taking a life?

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      People are killed daily not so indirectly by billionaires. Overpriced medicine, Military industry, Unhealthy products, Monopolization of water and other resources and land, poisoning ground water with industrial waste, unsafe work conditions, the list is endless.

      There is almost no billionaire that isnt responsible for someones death and in a moral world they would be in prison. So morals are already completely out of the window.

      • timestatic@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        Not every billionaire built their life doing something unethical. Killing them wouldn’t make you any better. People also fuel monopolies out of convenience even if they have a choice to act ethical. We should strive for legislative change. The billionaire might be the owner of parts of a company, but we as a society use the services for our daily lives. What economic system that actually works also supports free ideas, innovation and the willingness to perform other than something based on capitalism (Communism never worked and doesn’t reward it properly). Treating symptoms won’t treat the cause. We need legislative change.

    • stinky@redlemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 days ago

      If you were a slave and I was your master, would killing me be murder?

    • Trailblazing Braille Taser@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      10 days ago

      I prefer “eat the rich” as a metaphor for seizing their assets, not a literal endorsement of cannibalism. I’m actually surprised how many people literally mean “kill the rich”. Are you guys actual sociopaths?

      • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        I’m actually surprised (not really) how many people can come this close to getting it, but still be so desperate to follow the rules they’ve set (E: where they can directly and indirectly kill millions a year for profit with impunity, but we’re not allowed to even say nasty things about them, never mind plan to fight back against them, without being considered dangerous terrorists), that you manage to convince yourself billionaires will just freely and willingly give over those assets and all of the power that comes with them one day once we’ve asked nicely enough… 🙄

        • Trailblazing Braille Taser@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          10 days ago

          I don’t think asset seizure going to be easy, but it’s going to be significantly more effective and safer for everyone than staging a new French Revolution.

          If you’re truly advocating for murder on the internet (are you?), I don’t think there’s any point in trying to change your mind. I’m not “this close” to getting it — I already got it and rejected it.

        • NOVA DRAGON@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          10 days ago

          OK why don’t you go kill some billionaires then, instead of just fantasizing about it on the internet? Good luck and godspeed.

          • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            I suspect this happens far more than you think. They just have amazing security details.

      • Shizrak@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 days ago

        Nah, some of us just see that they buy the elections so that we can’t vote for change. And they buy the judges so we can’t sue for change. And they buy the media so we can’t speak for change. So now we’re exploring the extremely distasteful option because all other avenues for change have been blocked

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        10 days ago

        Lots of folks here are 100% for violence against anyone they disagree with.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            Site wide the general tone is “if they don’t pass the test, kill em”

            No contest on the examples you provided. They are horrible.

            God damn Lemmy

            Edit literally just now a thread about Tesla’s being hard for emergency services to get into, people are replying that the occupants should be left to die.

        • Trailblazing Braille Taser@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 days ago

          Yeah, I’ve been finding myself arguing with zealots more and more on Lemmy. This is really not a healthy community. I hope it’s some form of keyboard warrior syndrome and not the way these people behave in the real world.

          • NOVA DRAGON@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            almost tempted to make an alt account and then post a thread in the politics community titled something like, “planning to k*ll B!ll g@tes; any help would be appreciated” (i would work on the title to make it believable, of course). but you know what would happen; i would get banned. because this whole “k!ll the rich” thing is performative, i.e. misguided virtue signalling. and it’s all very very immature.

    • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      I’ll take some of your money then, I’m sure you won’t mind considering how well-off you are (and how blind you are to those of us less fortunate). Oh, you don’t want me to do that? If only there was some system, some measure of equality, some safety from poverty, a safety net for those that got dealt a shit hand and are juuuuust treading water… while fuckwads buy their second Bugatti this month.

      So for now, off with their heads. A few rolling away and they will come up with something real quick.

    • Sergio@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      I kind of agree with this type of objection. But note that the instrument of death is a guillotine. That hearkens back to a time of radical societal change, the French Revolution.

      • nomous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 days ago

        Additionally guillotines were seen as a more humane method of execution than the hangings and manual beheading of pre-Enlightenment France.

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        But also note that 99% of the victims of the guillotine during the French revolution were innocent commoners, most of the nobility escaped abroad long before the reign of terror started, and the final victim of the terror was the guy who had been in charge of it.

    • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      There’s an air of truth to that in that, I want them to be tortured first. Don’t build the wood pyres so high at the start. Make sure the fire slowly creeps up to their vital organs. We should also flash scenes of violence and poverty caused by their actions into their retinas as they boil into greedy little pools of charred carbon.

      To answer the question you’re thinking, like a baby, every night. Zero issues.

    • Custodian1623@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      37
      ·
      10 days ago

      The classic lemmy response:

      “its not about the murder it’s symbolic of revolution”

      “um it’s satire”

      “murder is good sometimes”

      all in reply to one comment

      • DolphinMath@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        I’m sure in a future thread we’ll get a comment saying something like:

        “No one on Lemmy is saying we should murder billionaires”