Obviously he disagrees because he is Garp, and I am Smoker -- moosey says I am the Dragon to his Garp but Dragon has way more chill and is more about the government oppression and reverting the world back to the way it was before the WG than Smoker who is about fixing Justice from the inside out -> which is how I roll
If we take societal norms, income doesn't matter if we are asking if a person is good or not. Is the question asking "holding billions of money is inherently bad" then are they unethical by default?
secondly, in order to become a billionaire, not only must you hoard and extract resources of others and from them, but there are other unethical steps that must be taken to get there
UNETHICAL BEING = the VERY FUCKING ASSUMED BASICS not going into Kant Utilitarianism bullshit but the basic social contract you are immediately entered into upon being born
while you cannot get through life without "harming others," I don't mean to get so deeply into the semantics of "BUT CC YOU USE OXYGEN THAT OTHERS NEEEEEEEDDDDDDD"
But the Kochs, Trumps, Waltons, Bezos, and even Bill Gates actively harm people and extract labour and resources from places, profit actively from war, strife, and pollution, and financially would be "harming themselves" to mitigate those
I don't recognize bacteria and plant life as worthy of continuing existence over their contribution to the ecosystem. Likewise, I think the mere suggestion that eating meat is meaningful factor to climate change is a massive red herring by political assholes using the oligarch playbook
It's not the process of becoming a billionaire that makes you immoral, it's the actions that gets you there. just as becoming poweful doesn't make you immoral, but because of the power involved, it will draw immoral people
I'm so bored of them being like "capitalism is the oppression!!!!" while using it themselves and having no greater solution or thoughts to follow through
I'm so annoyed with the libertarians who think the status quo as it already exists is ~~~ flawlesss~~~ and people should be beholden to an artificial system instead of vice versa
if you were really "all about the capitalism" and "all about the meritocracy" then you would be all about fixing the problems and purposely seeking them out tchhhaaaaaaaaa
Yeah no, that's not gonna happen, and it's definitely not going to be over ----- you do know that Russia has been using the NRA to illegally fund elections, right? And that Russia has been the only ones trying to push the USA = 2nd civil war imminent since the USSR time?
which plays into the CDC's hands, NRA dipshits (the lobbyists, not the people obvs. I've still got my own gun club card as CC Koppos, ta) just assume they can continue to block the information from even existing, but they already know through facebook and news media aggregates, that no, it won't be
If the US does start to crack into a civil war; it won't be left vs. right, red vs. blue, gun culture, racism, religion, or anything that applies to what idiot Russians WHO DIDN'T FUCKING GROW UP HERE AND LIVE AND BREATHE DAILY think/suggest
Occupy Movement was a baring of teeth and a warning growl. The rich smacked it down hard. The next warning bark was Bernie Sanders -- again, they smacked it down hard. The first bite was Trump. That was the not-rich saying "you guys aren't as smart as you fucking think" to the rich.
money "side" doesn't understand governance, civics, history, law, politics, society etc. THIS IS NOT THEIR GAME, THIS IS NOT THEIR CIRCUS. they are good at getting money that's their game. that's their thing. they are good at that.
but as Russians accurately point out as well; no one can know what the Americans are going to do next because the AMERICANS don't know what they're going to do next.
they just double prong it so they can pretend one side is fighting on behalf of X and the other side is fighting on behalf of Y and gee shouldn't you be worried about those ~~~others~~~
Although I AM SAYING anyone talking about gun rights being cause for a 2nd US civil war is just helping Russia. Democrats are big giant babies who sell guns, while the reds fear-monger them as boogeyman, they do not have the BALLS to confiscate a pea shooter.
If we take societal norms, income doesn't matter if we are asking if a person is good or not. Is the question asking "holding billions of money is inherently bad" then are they unethical by default?