748
We Rejected Monarchy in 1776. The Supreme Court Just Brought It Back.
(www.thenation.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
748 points (98.3% liked)
politics
18904 readers
2996 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Another thought, for the longer term.
We could add real downsides to being in the upper class. So that being in the upper class is no longer a strict upgrade from the middle class, but a trade-off.
For example we can guarantee most privacy protections for the lower classes (the very opposite of the current surveillance capitalism). At the same time the upper class would have to submit their persons and all their transactions and doings to the most stringent transparency requirements. Don't like being constantly under a microscope and in public view? Don't be in the upper class.
While the middle class would be a position in the middle with just marginally less privacy than the lower class, but much more privacy than the upper class.
Privacy is prerequisite to a life of dignity. It's not a bargaining chip for another prerequisite.
Wealth is only a prerequisite up to a point, beyond which wealth transitions into a luxury as opposed to something life-giving or dignifying.
I can accept accumulations up to somewhere between $50 and $150 million.
People with extreme accumulations have to be watched and regulated if we want a society that optimizes for broad dignity.
If you want to optimize for peak dignity, monarchies with unlimited accumulations are the best for that.
If humans constantly tempted by wealth and power, who then fall victim to it, have their right to privacy infringed, then they'll go right on feeding their addictions, no matter the cost of maintenance of privacy?
I don't view privacy as an unconditional right. Also perfect privacy is impossible.
If you are a small individual whose decisions will not make big waves in society, you can be completely anonymous as far as I am concerned.
If you command great resources and can singlehandedly significantly affect my world with a stroke of a pen, I need to watch you, because you are dangerous to my world.
Right now our society is exactly upside down in this aspect.
If I were in a position of power I'd hopefully willingly give up some privacy. But, no law can sit in judgement, let alone something so simple.
Agreed. Also to add, it's much better than having almost no power and almost no privacy like right now.
Besides, maybe you can think of another way to restrain the accumulationists at the top of society.
Right now being a billionaire is zero risk, zero downside. It's not a trade-off but a strict upgrade from the middle class. No wonder the billionaires are insane and detached from reality.
So either risk (like randomly executing some of them every year), or a downside, or both have to be added to the equation to keep the top of the society in check.
Taxes, government ownership, or communal ownership. For example, tax all wealth above $100m at 100%.
Taxes can be imposed after the billionaires are afraid to bribe the government.
Right now there is zero risk, zero downside for a billionaire to finance elections, offer revolving door opportunities, control via ownership almost all the media. Also zero risk, zero downside for the public officials to whore themselves out. All the political whores are walking and jetting around in safety and in luxurious comfort. Why would these folks change their behaviours?
Right now when a government official renegs on their promises, there is zero risk, zero downside. Politicians can promise to raise taxes on the superrich and just never do it, and zero risk, zero downside.
Well, privacy can be infringed as a motivator after tax and campaign finance reform. Prison is a bigger motivator.