Ok so how does a cancer kill its host?
It grows until it consumes so many nutrients that the other living cells don’t get enough. The host literally starves even if he eats plentifully.
The same applies for the US: The billionaires are not only hoarding wealth, but by doing so they’re crippling the economy for workers and everybody besides themselves.
Been saying it for years. Sadly there are too many at the bottom mesmerized by the elite propaganda telling them “you can also be like me, if you work hard”, as if they earned billions that way without any dirty tactics along the way, and despite even with success still needing such tactics to take more and more.
Luigi knew how to cure this type of cancer. It’s not rocket science but nobody with the means and opportunity is willing to do the right thing for humanity.
deleted by creator
There is no goal other than to keep taking. They couldn’t stop even if they wanted to. It only ends when life becomes so miserable for enough people that violence becomes the only answer
At this point radical measures are necessary to right the wrongs committed by the rich. Taxes are a good start but not enough.
Jail sentences,
countless are dead due to billionaire greed. they are directly responsible.
life sentences for billionaires
Jail them and spend even more money? Naa, just eat em
they rich are an ethical source of protein
There is no law providing for such a sentence, so what you are talking about is either “make billionaireism illegal” or “extrajudicial punishment”. In the case of the former, we need a Guillotine Party to take over the DNC much like the Tea Party took over the GOP. Or, we need a guillotine party, French Revolution style, to resolve the problem-class at its source.
If I have a company, where I intentionally make choices that kill my costumers, that would make me liable for manslaughter, me and anyone involved in the deaths. why healthcare billionaires are not liable?
same with every other billionaire who profits from human suffering and deaths.
No, actually, it doesn’t make you liable for manslaughter. It probably doesn’t even rise to the level of civil liability for wrongful death. They are compliant with the law, and they make sure of that by having their lawyers write the laws. The “anyone involved in the deaths” includes the deceased themselves, who is determined to bear primary responsibility.
We can override the laws they are writing (Guillotine Party) or we can suspend the laws to hold them accountable (guillotine party). But jailing them without a conviction just isn’t feasible.
fuck the law. those laws let them off the hook because they bribed (lobby) to have those laws.
Just because a mass murder is legal does not mean it has to go unpunished.
The holocaust was 100% legal, and no one has ever complained that it is unfair to prosecute nazis for not breaking the law.
when the law is so unfair, you cannot use the law as an argument.
I don’t think you’re understanding me. I’ll see if I can rephrase.
There is no “jail them for life” option without the law. If you try to imprison them without the law, the law will just come in and free them. You’re suggesting a middle option that is simply not feasible.
I’m asking you to choose between:
-
“Guillotine Party”, a political party, much like the Tea Party, dedicated to stripping the problem-class of their excessive political power, perhaps by creating laws to justify their permanent imprisonment. We politically, figuratively decapitate them. This approach can (theoretically) jail them for life, by creating the law that would allow it to happen.
-
“guillotine party”, where we solve the problem-class in much the same way that 18th century France solved their aristocracy problem. We literally decapitate them. This approach will not jail them for life; this approach will execute them for anti-revolutionary activities.
While the specific details will vary wildly, these are the only two general options we have available to us to effect reform: politics, or force.
-
Overnight massive protests at their places of residence will help
Suppose you spend 1.000 dollar a day.
A millionaire would take roughly 3 years until he spent it all.
If Jesus were a billionaire and did the same. He wouldn’t finished by today and would need another 700 years.
The numbers might be not exact but the point still stands: The difference between a millionaire and billionaire is ridiculous huge.
People think they understand numbers like billion because they understand thousand and billion is just thousand times thousand (million) times thousand. Multiplication is fairly intuitive, but exponentiation is not. Without explicitly thinking it through people feel like 1000^3 is not very different from 1000 * 3.
It’s the same reason the lottery fools so many people into gambling their money away.
People know what a million euros is, and having that 1000x is not that weird to reason about
There are roughly just under 3000 people on earth with more than a billion dollars.
They have a combined net worth of over $16 Trillion
Say the almighty Cthulu/Allah/Zeus decided “yo fuck those assholes” and instantly redistributed that $16 trillion among all 8 billion+ people on earth equally
Everyone: Every man, woman and child would get just a bit shy of $2000.
Fun thought experiment
Correct, because the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire is roughly 1 billion dollars.
Figuratively, but yes, I agree.
actually yes, figuratively is the word that i should have used.
Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Not a fan fat shaming that gets bundled in with that but basically. It’s the vice of greed, plain and simple.
Like imagine rolling up to a potluck and just buying the table, leaving naught but a bag of chips for the rest of the party. Even if you can afford it, it’s still a crime against your fellows.
Every person who kills a billionaire does so in self defense.
The (original) Nazis are rightfully considered monsters for killing millions of people in the 20th century. What will any survivors of the incineration of earth consider the billionaires that are killing BILLIONS of us for greed?
never, next question
Literal parasites who consume everything and offer nothing in return
deleted by creator
What are you talking about? Billionaires are what’s saving this country! Everyone just needs to stop eating and be homeless. But also fuxk homeless people and you turn to drugs for comfort? Jail obviously. They’re totally fixing everything! /S
We should start call them hoarders instead. They are just as obsessed and wierd about it.
Right? Billionaires should be seen in the same light as someone with a house full of cats and feces. Hoarding for the sake of hoarding is mental illness. Instead: we put them on Forbes and look to them as royals. Kill the rich.
Each billionaire is an individual problem AND allowing billionaires to grab and monopolize so many resources and even looking up to them is a systemic problem.
Without the systemic problem which is Capitalism and the shallow, greedy present day society, billionaires would be treated the same as other hoarders - seen mentally derranged and stopped from going too far for their own good and the good of others.
There will always be nutters, but if the social system we have wasn’t broken, this very specific kind of nutter would never be allowed to cause the damage they do with their mental disease.
I think what you mean to say is capitalism is cancer. There are books written on the subject.
The same applies to the human race.
Ok, Agent Smith.
I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.
Fuck man. Now I need to rewatch The Matrix
Nice try would be funnier
Agent Smith wasn’t wrong. Most villains have a weak motivation; Smith’s was strong, because it is true.
See, this is what I find funny about those who promote voluntary extinction, or most of those who promote any philosophy. They never lead by example.
Do you think I’m promoting voluntary extinction? I don’t think anyone has to do that - not only would it not make a dent in the race to doomsday, but it’s unnecessary since we’ve probably already passed the point at which we’re capable of halting the runaway ecological collapse we’ve engineered - even if there was any indication of willingness on the part of the biggest polluters to draw down, which there isn’t.
What I find funny is those people who are still making more people, as if they’re not dooming them to live through a true apocalypse: global societal and ecological collapse, technological regression, famine, and the resurgence of self-perpetuating oligarchies. A dark ages, but one we’ll never come out of.
Let’s take the original comment at face value and in earnest for a moment.
Wouldn’t the human race be more like a parasite?
In all honesty, I don’t think the earth needs us, nor would we qualify for a symbiotic relationship. Earth really doesn’t need most of its inhabitants.
That would move to a more existential question of what it means for earth to survive or be “alive”? Support any life?
If we take “Earth” as the biosphere, because honestly the naked rock isn’t that interesting, then the cancer analogy is fitting. After all, we grew as part of that Earth and have developed to a size and growth that now threatens to kill our host/the rest of the body
Yup! Of the things we could be, we’re most like a virus, but parasite might work. Most parasites don’t kill their hosts, and if they do it’s a secondary action - it usually isn’t the parasite itself that kills the host, but some virus or bacteria the parasite transmits. There are some really nasty parasitic worms that will kill you, or make you wish you were dead.
We’re definitely not symbiotic, like most macro and many micro organisms are.
If we consider the the ecosystem as the host, we’re killing it; and individually, we’re micro-sized to the Earth, so I think virus is the most accurate model.
Currently, our collective behavior is parasitic and destructive to the environment, yes. But it’s important to draw a distinction here - a virus or bacterial infection or a parasite are locked into their respective strategies. They cannot help being what they are.
We don’t get that excuse. Humans are the ultimate generalists; we specialized into learning and communicating new behaviors between ourselves. Unlike the flu or a ringworm, we have the capacity to change how we interact with the environment.
