Hacker News Reader

Comment by anth_anm | Hacker News Reader

> Amazon doesn't owe you jobs, tax revenue, or anything else.

They don't owe anyone jobs. They hire people to do work, they make money off that work. That is how this works. Job creators are not noble or good or generous merely because they create jobs. It is a self-serving act.

They owe tax revenue on profits earned.

> that we should be able to beat and shame billionaires into giving us their money and providing these opportunities

We should be able to do that. Exterminating the billionaire class (by taking their money) would be a great thing for society.

View on HN

> Exterminating the billionaire class (by taking their money) would be a great thing for society.

I feel like you're going out of your way to phrase that as offensively as possible. I would refer to this as some kind of dog-whistle for advocating violently putting people against the wall, except dog-whistles are supposed to be subtle. There's no reason to use words like "exterminate" unless you're explicitly trying to normalize murder as a political tactic. It's like saying we should "exterminate Muslims" by converting them to Christianity.

If you weren't trying to imply a threat, then I'm sure you won't object to my retort--that we should "exterminate" people like you by patiently educating them until they see reason and change their minds. Or maybe by forcibly confiscating their voting rights so they can't impose their desired "exterminations" on others.

> patiently educating them until they see reason and change their minds.

I can hold out longer than your patience.

> Or maybe by forcibly confiscating their voting rights

I don't have voting rights.

Billionaires shouldn't be allowed to exist in our society. That kind of wealth hoarding does no good, it's a massive waste.

> I don't have voting rights.

Thank God for that. You people slaughtered enough people in the 20th century.

> Exterminating the billionaire class (by taking their money) would be a great thing for society.

I suppose a class of actual slaves would be a great thing for society, too. It's easy when you define slaves, or billionaires, as being outside society and therefore subject to depredation.

Fortunately, advances in the theory of human rights as extending to all people have put an end to such thinking.

Except that if you say, implement a wealth cap at X millions then taking a billionaires money still leaves them rich enough to do anything.

That's not slavery.

Or they can just move all their money out of the country. An estimated 200 billion in capital left France when it instituted it's wealth tax.

And if you try to tax billionaires on wealth stored abroad, they'll just move to New Zealand. Do you really think billionaires are going choose to stay in the US and loose huge portions of their net worth instead of just leaving the country?

This is the problem with extreme forms of taxation. They really only work when a country does things like restrict travel out of the country. And if someone's policies is contingent on restricting certain classes of people it is going to raise some ethical questions.

> We should be able to do that. Exterminating the billionaire class (by taking their money) would be a great thing for society.

Historically, weak private property rights are used to hurt the poor, the vulnerable, the weak, the unpopular, the racial minorities, and the immigrants. My fellow members of the left make a grave mistake in assuming that private property rights are only important to the wealthy.

I will predict that assailing private property rights to accomplish societal goals will be seen as a major unforced error by this political movement because it will end up being used to harm non-billionaires FAR more than its used to rob the rich.

Not to mention that just like wiretapping and anything else, it's a lazy shortcut to just suspend rights to achieve your ends rather than doing the proper work within the system and without violating anyone's property rights. We need to put more thought into things than these kinds of facile solutions.

> My fellow members of the left make a grave mistake in assuming that private property rights are only important to the wealthy.

If you're defending billionaires, you aren't on the left.

Thanks for the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. Let me say in return that if you're this irrational, your adherence to the left (and your gatekeeping the left) is far more of a disservice to the left than a service.

I defend anyone's personal human rights from inappropriate threats, because I actually understand why we have those rights and why they're important. You are trying to dehumanize the billionaires so you can deny their fundamental rights and you're calling that "the left." I'm defending everyone's human rights, and I'm calling that "the left." I pray that I'm right and the left is more filled with thoughtful intellectuals who want to improve things rather than violently irrational people who want to seize other peoples' property and dehumanize their fellow citizens.

> Thanks for the No True Scotsman logical fallacy

Not no true Scotsman. gatekeeping, yes.

> I'm defending everyone's human rights, and I'm calling that "the left."

Good for you, but I wouldn't call that left or right wing. Defending private property rights is more right wing than left wing.

There isn't one position in politics...

L----------|----------R

I think Venezuela is looking for new citizens...

You may fit in well there. Just saying.

Communist China is of course the perfect example of the lack of property rights, enabling the displacement of the poor/non-connected to make way for the grandiose dreams of the Party.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com