• Chriskmee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t mind defending what I see as theft, even if it’s from people I don’t like. Is it crazy to defend something you see as wrong even if you don’t like the person? I don’t think right and wrong changes based on if the act is being done to someone I like vs don’t like

    • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you were actually against theft you would be against Bezos Musk and Gates stealing billions in profits from the people who are working for them.

    • Kynuck97 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why is theft inhereintly wrong? Would you see Robin Hood as the villain of his story? It’s not a matter of whether you like them or not, their exorbitant wealth is a bad thing in of itself. Why should they sit on so much wealth when most have so little?

      • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you mind if I steal your property? Would that be wrong? Or is it fine as long as I’m poorer than you?

        • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The difference is between private property and personal property. Private property is the means of production that produce wealth by extracting a profit margin from the labor of the workers that operate that means. Seizing private property is just democratizing the ownership of it between all the workers that use it, because you can’t really steal a corporation or a factory, just change ownership. Seizing personal property is taking someone’s toothbrush or car or books.

          • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Stealing ownership is still stealing though. You are suggesting we steal personal ownership in a company, ownership which is only worth a certain amount because the stock market says it is.

            • Kynuck97 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not like they’re going to just give it up. Do you think that the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few people is a good thing? Is it a good thing that billionaires get to waste money shooting off rockets while so many people go without a roof over their head?

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Wealth in this case is ownership in companies that have a massive worldwide presence. If wealth is ownership in the companies you own, then yes, I don’t think they should be forced to give that up. What they decide to spend their wealth on is up to them.

                • Kynuck97 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What they decide to spend their wealth on is up to them

                  The only acceptable way to use that much money is to reinvest it in the society that enabled you to become a billionaire.

                  It would cost around 20 billion dollars to end homelessness in the US, why should people be allowed to have net worths of 100 billion+ when it would only cost 1/5th of that to provide everyone with a home? Is stealing from one man to house hundreds of thousands of people a bad thing to do? Is personal ownership of wealth worth more than human life to you?

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The only acceptable way to use that much money is to reinvest it in the society that enabled you to become a billionaire.

                    Bill Gates seems to be doing a decent job of that, I’m glad he made the choices he has to redistribute his wealth, and I’m also glad it’s his choice.

                    It would cost around 20 billion dollars to end homelessness in the US, why should people be allowed to have net worths of 100 billion+ when it would only cost 1/5th of that to provide everyone with a home?

                    I really doubt it’s that simple. Where are these houses being built, in the middle of nowhere I suspect? How many homeless people want to move there? Will there be jobs out there? What about electricity, gas, and Internet?

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              ownership which is only worth a certain amount because the stock market says it is.

              Market value and use value are not the same thing. Cases like Musk obviously display wild overvaluing, but the practical use a repatriated asset can provide is not the same as its price tag unless your only use for it is to sell it.

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So how do we calculate wealth if it isn’t based on what the market says it’s worth? If we are going to tax Musk on his wealth, most of which is stock, how do you figure out the “real” wealth to tax?

                • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  In the case of stock, when we say it is “overvalued”, that is implicitly based on the idea that there is a better evaluation that we can at least estimate, wherein (using more Marxist terms) the use value and market value are more correlated.

                  How a wealth tax should be implemented depends a lot on the society in which it is implemented. If we are assuming it is just the US but with a wealth tax, then I think ignoring what I said and taxing people more when their stock is higher makes sense, because market-dictated wealth represents really the ultimate ability to direct society within the US. In other countries with more checks against the wealthy, another approach may be more justified.

                  Really, I don’t like wealth taxes compared to other models like a higher capital gains tax, but anything that takes money disproportionately from all billionaires is probably going to have my support merely for that fact, because anything that mainly hurts them is likely to be a good thing relative to the nothing we have.

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What about the middle class that relies on stocks to retire? If you aren’t aware, retirement accounts are usually mostly stocks, do we tax the middle class retirement money?

                    I think your last paragraph is pretty telling, just blindly supporting anything that hurts billionaires simply because they are billionaires, no matter how unfair or unjust it is, or even his bad the consequences would be for the country.

                    I think there is a reason the most successful companies are from the US, you would have them move their bushes elsewhere that’s more supportive of their size?

      • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not against giving people a chance, and helping them get that chance, but that doesn’t include taking away houses from rightful owners and giving them away to homeless people. It’s no coincidence that the homeless tend to destroy wherever they set up, so they need to set up in government run shelters that can handle it.

        • Judge_Jury [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          So in the moral system you’re proposing, it would be an offense to use those buildings without their owner’s permission. The fact that people denied access to those buildings will die as a result, though, is just a part of nature

          So, why would you expect a perspective which values property more than people to stir anyone’s moral feeling? If you don’t expect that, then why are you bothering to frame it in terms of right and wrong?

          • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So in the moral system you’re proposing, it would be an offense to use those buildings without their owner’s permission. The fact that people denied access to those buildings will die as a result, though, is just a part of nature

            Well, yes. Do you donate every least penny you have to the homeless, since it would save lives? Or do you instead spend your money on luxuries for yourself? There are right and wrong ways to go about helping people like the homeless, stealing and ruining property isn’t one of those ways.

            So, why would you expect a perspective which values property more than people to stir anyone’s moral feeling? If you don’t expect that, then why are you bothering to frame it in terms of right and wrong?

            I assume you have some property, right? If you are an adult you are probably at least renting an apartment and have some basic stuff like a TV. Why don’t you let a homeless person sleep on your couch every night? If you don’t have your own place yet, would you allow some random homeless person access to your couch for free every night?

            It’s much easier when it isn’t your property in question, but when it’s your place you might start to care about random people living rent free in your place.