Yes, good point. I agree.
Maybe there’s also a difference in perception of these tales, because when a dragon is slain the people can regain their wealth. In this case though, the wealth of the CEO doesn’t get transferred to the people.
Buuut one can argue that we have an inheritance tax, thus part of his hoarded money WILL get transferred to the people, in which case the murderer is actually returning the wealth to the people and the dragon metaphor isn’t that invalid after all. It gets very quickly very murky ethically. I presume that while the wealth is parked away in some off-shore, probably some of it at least will return to the State. A lot depends though on the tax rate, how exactly the taxing goes, who does it,…
Long story short - this guy was way too rich, no question asked. That’s for sure.
As the other comment says, the story is almost never about taking back the wealth. It’s about stopping them from doing more harm. The people don’t celebrate because they can take their wealth back. They celebrate because they’re no longer being murdered by a horrible monster.
With this said, someone will take his place. If you slay enough dragons the dragons will start to worry about if they’re next though. They’ll hopefully try to fix the system that they broke so they will be honestly tried for their crimes instead of murdered.
That is a very good point - thank you for bringing it up. You are right.
I hope this death was enough for the rich people to realize that they need to change, and that no more people will die. I presume that’s something we can agree upon.
This doesn’t work here, because by death of the CEO the insurance of the USA probably won’t be switched to a public healthcare. The dragon will continue eating people, simply with a different head.
Yes, good point. I agree. Maybe there’s also a difference in perception of these tales, because when a dragon is slain the people can regain their wealth. In this case though, the wealth of the CEO doesn’t get transferred to the people. Buuut one can argue that we have an inheritance tax, thus part of his hoarded money WILL get transferred to the people, in which case the murderer is actually returning the wealth to the people and the dragon metaphor isn’t that invalid after all. It gets very quickly very murky ethically. I presume that while the wealth is parked away in some off-shore, probably some of it at least will return to the State. A lot depends though on the tax rate, how exactly the taxing goes, who does it,…
Long story short - this guy was way too rich, no question asked. That’s for sure.
As the other comment says, the story is almost never about taking back the wealth. It’s about stopping them from doing more harm. The people don’t celebrate because they can take their wealth back. They celebrate because they’re no longer being murdered by a horrible monster.
With this said, someone will take his place. If you slay enough dragons the dragons will start to worry about if they’re next though. They’ll hopefully try to fix the system that they broke so they will be honestly tried for their crimes instead of murdered.
That is a very good point - thank you for bringing it up. You are right.
I hope this death was enough for the rich people to realize that they need to change, and that no more people will die. I presume that’s something we can agree upon.
This singular one will not. As sad as it is, it has to become more expected for them to fear it. Terrorism isn’t good, but it can be used to do good.
The usual impetus for slaying the dragon is to stop it from eating people.
This doesn’t work here, because by death of the CEO the insurance of the USA probably won’t be switched to a public healthcare. The dragon will continue eating people, simply with a different head.
I didn’t say this was an effective way to solve the problem, nor do I think the other poster’s assertion is accurate.