You're viewing part of a thread.
JFK and the other politicians are no billionaires.
Correct, but JFK didn't have a paltry security detail - he had the protection of the entire US defence and intelligence apparatus, and how effective was that against one man and his rifle? The others are variations in the same theme, some more relevant than others.
The Viet Cong and Taliban made billionaires. The tax payers had to pay.
They also used their meagre resources to cause massive problems and expense for the US.
The point of all this is that all the money in the world only grants these people limited protections.
I strongly favour democratic solutions where they're available (revolution without sustainable preparation is where communist regimes turn autocratic almost every time), but understand the democracy-breaking political influence billionaires are able to buy. If a couple of your Kochs and Murdochs start meeting grisly ends, the rest of their ilk might get the message, stand aside and let democracy run its course for once.
Gated communities. Politicians die because they have to meet their voters.
Since the US has global influence, politicians and voters are influenced globally. Koch and Murdoch are just standing out.
Voters have to wise up. I don't believe that a random group of assassins can solve the problem.
Rome ended in tyranny because even the educated elite wasn't wise enough. It's difficult but we have to be better. Assassinations are a distraction from that problem that needs to be solved.
Do you honestly think I'm suggesting that a couple of dead billionaires solves the problem?
If this is still your impression after pre-reading my last paragraph, I'm not sure what to say.
If it's not, why the strawman? These are actual problems we all face - how are we to solve them if we're lying to dismiss solutions we don't like?
I focused on
where they’re available
Which paragraph? I am sorry but I had the impression that you see assassinations as solution. I am also not sure what the strawman is to you.
Let's step back. What's your approach?
To answer both questions...
I strongly favour democratic solutions where they're available (revolution without sustainable preparation is where communist regimes turn autocratic almost every time), but understand the democracy-breaking political influence billionaires are able to buy. If a couple of your Kochs and Murdochs start meeting grisly ends, the rest of their ilk might get the message, stand aside and let democracy run its course for once.
It's not how the real progress happens, but it's certainly likely to help things along.
All I read is 'kill some billionaires and the others will treat us nicely'.
There is a hint at a communist revolution with a democratic foundation.
If you want that, why not have cooperatives and such within the current political framework?
What do you really want and how do you want to get there?
What have I said that makes you think I don't support cooperatives?
I'm not going to lose any sleep about people putting the fear of god into a class of people that has amassed am unreasonable level of wealth at the expense of society, and use that power to exercise massive, anti-democratic political power - almost exclusively to protect their own interests which are directly challenged by socialist principles. If we have fewer billionaires, we have fewer obstacles to creating a better, fairer society.
I want to maximise happiness for all sapient creatures. I think the best path to this is to maximise peoples' positive freedoms, which in turn are best enabled through stronger democracy politically and in the workplace, through more equitable wealth distribution (e.g. worker ownership of the means of production, banning political donations, strong social safety net), and strong social services to maximise social mobility and the ability to live the way they want free from the fear that they'll die hungry and homeless if they don't optimise for profit.
If billionaires are threatened with death, they are incentiviced to keep democratic coordination to a minimum. As cooperatives are deeply democratic, they will require the understanding that blanket billionaire killings are no option to establish them broadly in all industries or billionaires cannot allow to lose their influence.
A side argument about social mobility. If only class losers are workers, not many people are left who can effectively represent workers.
Billionaires are already incentivised to keep democratic coordination to a minimum - see their consistent, often violent union busting efforts.
When workers rather than the bourgeois own the means of production, why would workers be class losers? With fairer taxation used to fund better opportunity for all, the power of the wealthy evaporates as the power of the workers grows.
Union busting is a business decision, preserving one's life should have higher priorities. Violence will be higher if lives are defended.
Workers would become class losers in a second step when a new elite can gain control by disenfranchising workers again.