this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
1067 points (95.7% liked)

Comic Strips

12744 readers
2344 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Of course. However killing billionaires is still immoral if there are peaceful solutions to redistributing the wealth, and useless if the act of killing them doesn't magically redistribute the wealth fairly (it doesn't)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 33 minutes ago

if there are peaceful solutions to redistributing the wealth

But that's the whole point, there aren't any.

The whole idea of being able to tax them fairly and properly is merely a pacifier so the people think they have a chance. And while they hope something might change, the rich actually use their power, money and influence to rig the system in a way that ensure they'll never have to pay their fair share.

There's no peaceful solution to the unethical and violent accumulation of wealth

[–] [email protected] 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

What's your larger point? Why hedge with "killing billionairs is immoral" instead of just saying what you really mean.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

What do you think I really mean? Killing anyone, including billionaires, is unethical. Maybe it could be justified in a utilitarian sense if it was guaranteed to lead to wealth redistribution and there was no other way, but even that isn't the case.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 18 hours ago

Do you understand why people use of the phrase "eat the rich" or their threats to bring out guillotines? Do you understand the historic relevance and the iconography. To me, if you did, there would be no reason to make the misguided statement, "that's immoral." Other than to create subterfuge.