• JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Of course. However killing billionaires is still immoral if there are peaceful solutions to redistributing the wealth, and useless if the act of killing them doesn’t magically redistribute the wealth fairly (it doesn’t)

    • gravityowl@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      if there are peaceful solutions to redistributing the wealth

      But that’s the whole point, there aren’t any.

      The whole idea of being able to tax them fairly and properly is merely a pacifier so the people think they have a chance. And while they hope something might change, the rich actually use their power, money and influence to rig the system in a way that ensure they’ll never have to pay their fair share.

      There’s no peaceful solution to the unethical and violent accumulation of wealth

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 hours ago

        What do you think I really mean? Killing anyone, including billionaires, is unethical. Maybe it could be justified in a utilitarian sense if it was guaranteed to lead to wealth redistribution and there was no other way, but even that isn’t the case.

        • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Do you understand why people use of the phrase “eat the rich” or their threats to bring out guillotines? Do you understand the historic relevance and the iconography. To me, if you did, there would be no reason to make the misguided statement, “that’s immoral.” Other than to create subterfuge.