this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
122 points (66.3% liked)
196
16746 readers
2429 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
An eye for an eye doesn't make the whole world blind. It makes a few people blind until they wise up and realize "Wait, I like making people blind, but I don't want to be blind!" And then they stop blinding people, thus removing the need to blind them in return.
Yeah, I'm sure after we murder more people they'll start thinking twice about putting people in debt. /sarcasm
Without pursuing a legislative solution, no matter how many people you kill: the problem will never go away.
A legislative solution? The people making legislature literally work with CEO's, accepting their money in exchange for enacting policies that benefit them. They're partners. I'd love a country where the government works for the people to hold back corporations, but this country specifically believes the opposite should be true. There will be no legislative solution insofar as capitalism is still the American system. There is no way within the current system for rich people to be brought to justice, only people working outside the system can make that happen.
Brian Thompson made a living making people blind, sometimes even literally, and it was all well within his rights in the eye of the law. Us giving him a taste of his own medicine is already showing results in those other CEO's that don't want to suffer the same fate. We're literally already seeing what "an eye for an eye" gets us, and it's fear among those who have been free to blind people for decades without ever worrying about being blinded themselves before now.
It doesn't matter if you think a legislative solution is silly, this is never going to end any other way. If it is legal then people will do it, forever.
Well, yes, you're right. People will continue to do it forever. So long as accumulating capital is the goal of the country, companies like United Healthcare will exist, and will be free to ruin people's lives in the name of gaining more capital. However, unless we literally overthrow the system, it too will never change. Currently, the only viable solution that I can see actually happen is that every few years we need to remind the CEO's that they're not entirely safe by culling a few. Because we literally have no other way to influence them - the law is on their side, and we would need to overthrow the law itself to change that.
Your solution is only the right one in a hypothetical world where a legislative change is possible, but we do not live in that world. We might be able to change the world to make it a viable option, but to do that would require a lot more killing of a lot more powerful people, otherwise known as a revolution. Even then, in the scenario where we tear down this system and build a new one, greed will always exist in society, and those that seek power will always eventually worm their way into powerful positions. The new system would work for a while, but when greed and power inevitably come back together again, we'll need to tear that system down and start over once more.
LMK when a country exists that doesn't have accumulating capital as a goal for its people, until then we can use the method I mentioned which actually works.
Sure, you let me know when your method actually works. I'd love it if it did - it'd sure be a game changer literally around the world. Until then, let's just be happy that this random gunman actually did something that worked, even if only temporarily.
Yeah actually the vast majority of modern countries have public healthcare, so people like the UnitedHealthcare CEO don't exist in countries like that. Do you want a list?
So you agree that the vast majority of countries don't put capital gain over human life? That legislature is possible in such a scenario, but not ours, with capital being the most important thing, lives be damned? Because that's what I've been saying. Public healthcare exists when a country's government doesn't lie in bed with private healthcare CEOs. America's does, and it was designed to do so. You want public healthcare? Then prepare to join the inevitable revolution, because that's how you'll get it.
The vast majority of countries made denying individuals healthcare, based on financial status, an illegal act. The vast majority of countries came up with a legislative solution of the state funding healthcare via income from taxation.
They're all examples of what I said, not your mythical place where pursuit of capital doesn't exist.
The pursuit of capital is a thing elsewhere, yes, but that pursuit isn't in control of legislation (at least as badly as it is over there in the US). Instead it is (mostly) controlled by legislation. This is the crucial difference between the US and most of the developed world. This is what would need to change before your dream of a legislative solution could be realised.
Bhutan
They don't allow visitors, those who do visit pay roughly $200 USD equivalent fines per day and $3,000 per night minimum for lodging. They didn't allow any immigration for a long time and now allow very very few. While they were famously extremely poor several decades ago, they've been trying hard to reduce the number of people in extreme poverty, two decades ago it was more than 2 in 10 then down to 1 in 10, but many still remain in poverty by the nation's own definition. An average Bhutan citizen could work their entire lives and not be able to afford a stay at one of their own resorts, or leave the country, nor would they be able to adapt to modern life outside of Bhutan because they lack education. The richest resident of Bhutan has a net worth of over 30 Billion Nu, which is something like 353 Million USD, made by developing roads (with public funds).
But I guess they might be happy in an ignorance is bliss sort of way, even if they live like medieval peasants.
Well of course they’re poor, they put a higher value on the happiness of their population than on their capital generation. The country can only sustainably support so many people, so they can’t let a large number of people immigrate unless they want to sacrifice their wildlife or impose reproduction limits on residents (directly or through reduced support for families), both of which would be fucked up.
I didn’t realize they had zero billionaires though, now I’m even more impressed by them!
I just told you they live hungry, uneducated, and basically serve to enrich a small group of elites and your response was "wow, that could be me!"
You asked for a country that doesn’t prioritize wealth creation and you don’t like the one given because they’re poor. I don’t know what you want, but now it seems like you’re looking for a country that’s just wealthy by happenstance, which I don’t think can exist in a world dominated by trade and capitalism.
Bhutan prioritizes happiness over wealth. Therefore, the people living there are not especially wealthy on a global scale, given that most other countries prioritize wealth.
I outlined very very very clearly, with no room to deny, Bhutan is built in a way that enriches a few, and serves the extremely wealthy from around the world, while many suffer.
I don’t think we’re having the same conversation, because I took very different things away from your comment. That’s okay, we are not the same, as noted. I’ll leave it here.