Survival of the richest: The wealthy are plotting to leave us behind

[Starglider]

This sample represents an extreme point and should not be generalised. Traders in general have to be somewhat ruthless and tend to be a bit weird, investment sales staff have to possess the social skills of a con artist, and to reach the top of a firm requires power lust and ability to play power politics. Investment fund leads combine all of that and then on top of that this is an event marketed specifically to paranoid survivalists. If it makes you feel any better, it's kind of sad how they're asking about loyalty of security forces and thinking of solutions such as code-locked food stores. Actual ruthless villains e.g. drug barons, junta members wouldn't have to ask because they almost instinctively know how to use intimidation, casual violence, playing subordinates off against each other, all shored up with a bit of twisted machismo and 'honour' to maintain local rule. The paranoid fund managers are just overpaid financial advisers i.e. they got their money by providing consulting to lots of wealthy people. This group do represent a low point in human morality but only in the 'continental shelf' sense as opposed to the 'ocean floor' level of a serial killer or the 'Marianas Trench' level of Stalin, Pol Pot, Stas Bush* etc.

* I joke, while this one's world view is supposedly utterly muderous, oppressive and horrible, in truth it's so ridiculous that he comes across more as a My Little Pony villain ("In sameness, there is peace. Exceptionalism is a lie. Choose equality as your special talent. Difference is frustration. To excel is to fail. Be your best by never being your best. Conformity will set you free. Accept your limitations, and happiness will follow. You're no better than your neighbour.") than a credible threat to anyone or anything. As human psychological abberations go, extreme hypertrophy of the 'fairness' instinct to an overpowering need to homogenise life experiences at any cost (in coin or lives) is a fairly rare one. One might almost be tempted to feel sorry for him, given the inherent incompatibility of this with baseline human psychology and thus the impossibility of realising it: in some sense he must be living in a personal hell. However that would be a mistake, and not just because of the hypocrisy of him being in the top 3% of most fortunate humans in history to date. The delusion has willingly metastatised into a core of pure hate and instead we should celebrate every modern convenience, every day of the existence of democracy as a victory over this mindeset.

[K. A. Pital]

You could enter the slaver class by marriage or inheritance. Neither marriage nor childbirth are inherently exploitative, are they not?

A dodge. You said it was impossible to acquire wealth without exploiting people. I provided counter-examples.

It is possible to acquire wealth by accident, much like with my slaver example. But it is not possible to keep or increase that wealth without exploitation.

Again, your slavery analogy fails, because to have slaves, you must be directly exploiting and violating other sapient beings. A person who is wealthy might be harming people by inaction, but unless they acquired their wealth by exploiting or violating others, its not really equivalent, and saying it is just cheapens the horror of slavery.

No, he is harming them not via inaction, but via action. That action is the alienation of their labour and their exploitation. How do you think Philip Green came in possession of a megayacht (I think it is Lionheart, the size of which I have seen in person)? Workers in sweatshops in Bangladesh and Pakistan died in the thousands. And even in the EU he was involved in scandals where less than minimum wage was paid to textile workers. And you are saying this guy’s only harming “by inaction” and totally not like a slaver? And it is just one example.

If you'd clarified that about five posts ago, a lot of trouble might have been spared.

I would say that bringing up children in a discussion about politics is an attempt to build an argument on emotion. The US attack on Iraq was a crime against humanity, and thousands of children died as a result. Later the bodycount in Iraq soared to half a million. But to rectify this evil and bring the US junta who started the war to justice - execute them or throw into jail - it would take an exceptional amount of suffering, because the US public would not allow such a thing to transpire.

[K. A. Pital]

The delusion has willingly metastatised into a core of pure hate and instead we should celebrate every modern convenience, every day of the existence of democracy as a victory over this mindeset.

Hating your kind is like ice cream.

[K. A. Pital]

The paranoid fund managers are just overpaid financial advisers i.e. they got their money by providing consulting to lots of wealthy people.

Basically slaver consultants. “How to make my slaves more productive” “Oh lord my slaves are unruly can I apply some shock collars” “Why does everyone hate me” I do sincerely hope their entire lives are like that: paranoid, sad, delusional, “survivalist” - idiots who think they can survive outside society. I have met these also in person, they wanted to be cool gangsta deep down, they said it. I believe them. Who alienate their fellow humans and in the end are only left alone, with no one at all. Hope they die as they have lived: alone, no family, no friends, no genuine relationship with any human soul. Only money. Hope they die buried under a pile of money. Techbros, capitalists, consultants, all the rich - rush to your ultimate fate, alienate, atomize, be alone, and die alone. From natural causes.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is possible to acquire wealth by accident, much like with my slaver example. But it is not possible to keep or increase that wealth without exploitation.

I'd be interested to know how you define "wealth", how much is too much- but beyond that I largely agree.

No, he is harming them not via inaction, but via action. That action is the alienation of their labour and their exploitation. How do you think Philip Green came in possession of a megayacht (I think it is Lionheart, the size of which I have seen in person)? Workers in sweatshops in Bangladesh and Pakistan died in the thousands. And even in the EU he was involved in scandals where less than minimum wage was paid to textile workers. And you are saying this guy’s only harming “by inaction” and totally not like a slaver? And it is just one example.

Yes, those who purchase stuff made in sweatshops are (indirectly) harming people by their actions. That is not the same as simply having (or acquiring wealth) in and of itself.

I would say that bringing up children in a discussion about politics is an attempt to build an argument on emotion. The US attack on Iraq was a crime against humanity, and thousands of children died as a result. Later the bodycount in Iraq soared to half a million. But to rectify this evil and bring the US junta who started the war to justice - execute them or throw into jail - it would take an exceptional amount of suffering, because the US public would not allow such a thing to transpire.

Its a valid point, because when you attack an entire class of people, you are also inherently attacking the most innocent and vulnerable members of that class. So I used an extreme example to drive home that these are individual people you're talking about, not just a demographic, not all of whom deserve the harm that a broad-strokes approach would inflict.

Also, I'm pretty sure a good chunk of the US population would be cool with trying the Bush Administration, and even more of us would be cool with trying the Trump administration. The problem, as usual, was and is Republican tyranny and corruption shielded by cowardice and an excessive fixation on compromise from Centrist Democrats. That's the basic story of the US over the last several decades in a nutshell.

[K. A. Pital]

It is possible to acquire wealth by accident, much like with my slaver example. But it is not possible to keep or increase that wealth without exploitation.

I'd be interested to know how you define "wealth", how much is too much- but beyond that I largely agree.

I define wealth as capital. It is a productive wealth that keeps increasing via the application of wage labour, ie through the M-G-M cycle. It is the use of wage labour to grow capital that I am opposed to. Its actual size is much less important than its application. I could use a garage to put my car into it, or organize a sweatshop to make products for sale. The first is much less of an issue.

How much is too much? Let’s say that it is OK to have a wage disparity. But for me, it is only OK if other members of society are provided with all essentials (housing, clothing, etc.), and everyone’s share of the pie is growing ever-so-slowly as the pie itself grows.

Otherwise you motivate people not to enrich everyone together, but to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

Yes, those who purchase stuff made in sweatshops are (indirectly) harming people by their actions. That is not the same as simply having (or acquiring wealth) in and of itself.

But “having” wealth is not possible without that wealth originating somewhere first (and if you dig into companies’ past, you will find exploitation, extortion or even plain theft). Acquiring wealth? How do you think that is possible without harming anyone (with the exception of marriage or inheritance)?

Its a valid point, because when you attack an entire class of people, you are also inherently attacking the most innocent and vulnerable members of that class. So I used an extreme example to drive home that these are individual people you're talking about, not just a demographic, not all of whom deserve the harm that a broad-strokes approach would inflict.

I agree that we should be merciful when we can. I just wanted to point out that people, including children routinely die as a result of political action. Also every previously existing master class had children: slaveholders, aristocrats, etc. It would be of course for the best to just let them live the lives of an ordinary citizen. To feel what it is like to be a nobody.

Also, I'm pretty sure a good chunk of the US population would be cool with trying the Bush Administration, and even more of us would be cool with trying the Trump administration. The problem, as usual, was and is Republican tyranny and corruption shielded by cowardice and an excessive fixation on compromise from Centrist Democrats. That's the basic story of the US over the last several decades in a nutshell.

I admire your willingness to bring both Trump and Bush to justice for what they did. In fact, I find it very commendable. I just do not think that this desire is shared by a significantly large active part of the population (note: active, passive support but inaction is not helping bc the establishment is, as you say, cowardly, corrupt and unable to prosecute their own kind)... Which makes me a pessimist on this point. The core idea was that the status-quo is also not victimless. And with climate change in full swing, the number of victims is poised to rise. You and I both know this sad truth.

And the responsible will not be brought to justice - at least with the current political forces in power. Much like Boeing’s disregard of safety that borders on manslaughter through negligence, but is left basically unpunished, so will the acts of the capitalist elite.

I come from where human lives are constantly extinguished for the laughs of the rich, a kind of a gladiatorial arena. For me, there are no friends among the patricians, which is why I react the way I do to every news about the rich being asocial, sociopathic and sometimes borderline crazy (desire for shock-collared servants and bunkers are a clear indication for seeking qualified medical assistance).

[The Romulan Republic]

I define wealth as capital. It is a productive wealth that keeps increasing via the application of wage labour, ie through the M-G-M cycle. It is the use of wage labour to grow capital that I am opposed to. Its actual size is much less important than its application. I could use a garage to put my car into it, or organize a sweatshop to make products for sale. The first is much less of an issue.

That's an interesting perspective. So its the capitalist system, more than the amount of wealth someone has, that you object to?

How much is too much? Let’s say that it is OK to have a wage disparity. But for me, it is only OK if other members of society are provided with all essentials (housing, clothing, etc.), and everyone’s share of the pie is growing ever-so-slowly as the pie itself grows.

I agree with this, with the caveat that unlimited growth is probably not possible without infinite resources (which makes a pretty strong socialist argument for the space program, if we want ever-higher standards of living).

Otherwise you motivate people not to enrich everyone together, but to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

Agreed.

But “having” wealth is not possible without that wealth originating somewhere first (and if you dig into companies’ past, you will find exploitation, extortion or even plain theft). Acquiring wealth? How do you think that is possible without harming anyone (with the exception of marriage or inheritance)?

Well, if you go back far enough, everything in our society has "tainted" origins, somewhere. The Declaration of Independence was written by a slave owner and rapist. Does that mean that living in America is a form of exploitation (some, I'm sure, would argue yes, but it seems to me unreasonable). Or here's another example: A lot of NASA's early work was built on Nazi research, and by Nazi scientists- does that mean that building a colony on Mars would be exploitation of the Holocaust?

The question, for me, is how direct the exploitation has to be before we hold people personally responsible for it. That's not an easy question, whatever your answer. Because we don't want to profit off of, condone, or encourage evil and exploitation- but history is so riddled with it that to completely avoid it, we'd have to pull a Thanos, purge our entire civilization, and start over.

I agree that we should be merciful when we can. I just wanted to point out that people, including children routinely die as a result of political action. Also every previously existing master class had children: slaveholders, aristocrats, etc. It would be of course for the best to just let them live the lives of an ordinary citizen. To feel what it is like to be a nobody.

People die, but we have a duty to avoid deaths, especially the deaths of innocents, wherever possible.

All people should be politically and legally equal, and be assured of the necessities of life and a good education.

I admire your willingness to bring both Trump and Bush to justice for what they did. In fact, I find it very commendable. I just do not think that this desire is shared by a significantly large active part of the population (note: active, passive support but inaction is not helping bc the establishment is, as you say, cowardly, corrupt and unable to prosecute their own kind)... Which makes me a pessimist on this point. The core idea was that the status-quo is also not victimless. And with climate change in full swing, the number of victims is poised to rise. You and I both know this sad truth.

I don't deny that.

A big test, I think, will be whether Trump ever faces prosecution. If none do, it will only reaffirm the precedent set by Nixon and Bush- that if you are the President, you are effectively immune. And yet more and greater horrors will follow.

And the responsible will not be brought to justice - at least with the current political forces in power. Much like Boeing’s disregard of safety that borders on manslaughter through negligence, but is left basically unpunished, so will the acts of the capitalist elite.

I'm not so pessimistic. IF Trump is removed from office (admittedly a big if) before the Statute of Limitations for Campaign Finance Violations and Obstruction expire, there's a real chance- there are multiple solid grounds for prosecution, and at least some in law enforcement who seem eager to pursue them (the FBI up in New York appears to be building a campaign finance case against him, for example, and New York State is being pretty relentless too, and if he goes down on state-level charges, there is no chance of a pardon).

If he wins the election, then the Republic is probably dead, and any justice will likely come only after some form of revolution.

I come from where human lives are constantly extinguished for the laughs of the rich, a kind of a gladiatorial arena. For me, there are no friends among the patricians, which is why I react the way I do to every news about the rich being asocial, sociopathic and sometimes borderline crazy (desire for shock-collared servants and bunkers are a clear indication for seeking qualified medical assistance).

I can certainly see how that would affect your perspective.

[Zaune]

The way I see it, if all the ultrawealthy sociopaths have collectively decided to go colonise Mars or the bottom of the ocean or whatever then we should actively encourage them to do so. Once they're out of the way we can get on with actually doing something constructive about the problem now that anyone incapable of grasping the idea that all human life has inherent value has buggered off somewhere we don't have to listen to their bollocks anymore.

[The Romulan Republic]

The way I see it, if all the ultrawealthy sociopaths have collectively decided to go colonise Mars or the bottom of the ocean or whatever then we should actively encourage them to do so. Once they're out of the way we can get on with actually doing something constructive about the problem now that anyone incapable of grasping the idea that all human life has inherent value has buggered off somewhere we don't have to listen to their bollocks anymore.

I'd rather turn Mars into a socialist utopia, myself.

[K. A. Pital]

Maybe we should salvage Earth before we go to Mars? Show that we can live on at least one planet without destroying it completely or making barely inhabitable.

[Ralin]

Man, the three pages of posts about how being wealthy is inherently evil and how we should kill or rob the rich totally doesn't make the point that they have legit reasons to fear people turning on them and trying to take their stuff if society breaks down. What sociopaths they are for not meekly submitting!

[Ace Pace]

Maybe we should salvage Earth before we go to Mars? Show that we can live on at least one planet without destroying it completely or making barely inhabitable.

I think 8 billion people can collectively walk and chew gum at the same time.

[K. A. Pital]

Man, the three pages of posts about how being wealthy is inherently evil and how we should kill or rob the rich totally doesn't make the point that they have legit reasons to fear people turning on them and trying to take their stuff if society breaks down. What sociopaths they are for not meekly submitting!

Well, a slaver ought to fear his slaves. Genuine relationships between a master and a servant are not possible. If the fear of the lower classes drives them mad, all the better.

[Ralin]

Well, a slaver ought to fear his slaves. Genuine relationships between a master and a servant are not possible. If the fear of the lower classes drives them mad, all the better.

Sure, if by slavery you mean "voluntarily working for an agreed upon amount." Contrary to what you'd have us believe many of us from the 'lower classes' actually have morals and aren't salivating to rob and murder anyone better off than us. You should stop projecting.

[K. A. Pital]

Sure, if by slavery you mean "voluntarily working for an agreed upon amount." Contrary to what you'd have us believe many of us from the 'lower classes' actually have morals and aren't salivating to rob and murder anyone better off than us. You should stop projecting.

Try not working and not dying from hunger, jackass.

Why don’t moneybags actually work for a living? I guess all that work ain't “voluntary”, as you say.

[Jub]

Sure, if by slavery you mean "voluntarily working for an agreed upon amount." Contrary to what you'd have us believe many of us from the 'lower classes' actually have morals and aren't salivating to rob and murder anyone better off than us. You should stop projecting.

Is it really voluntary if the options are work or become cripplingly destitute?

Is it really voluntary if you're forced to take a job you loathe because the education for a career you would find meaningful is out of reach due to your economic status?

Is it really voluntary when those with vast sums of money have vastly more political influence than a few thousand of the poorest of that same nation have combined?

Things can't be voluntary if they are coerced.

[Ralin]

Try not working and not dying from hunger, jackass.

Rich people aren't responsible for your personal need for food, shelter and medicine.

Why don’t moneybags actually work for a living? I guess all that work ain't “voluntary”, as you say.

Because they have enough money to support themselves in comfort without doing so. What of it?

Are you claiming that you've worked a job where you weren't physically free to quit and leave? Because outside of the prison system that's vanishingly rare in America.

[Ralin]

Is it really voluntary if the options are work or become cripplingly destitute?

Yes, because that’s a you problem.

Is it really voluntary if you're forced to take a job you loathe because the education for a career you would find meaningful is out of reach due to your economic status?

Of course. What, you think you’re entitled to demand that people work teaching you whether they like it or not, or that people who decided to become teachers can’t tell you (possibly at one or more remove) how much they expect you to pay?

Is it really voluntary when those with vast sums of money have vastly more political influence than a few thousand of the poorest of that same nation have combined?

I’m sorry, could you clarify? ‘Has political influence’ is pretty vague.

Things can't be voluntary if they are coerced.

If your definition of coercion can be boiled down to ‘there are things I as a talking meatsack need to keep living and without them I will die’ then nothing can be voluntary and neither concept has any real meaning.

[K. A. Pital]

Leave where?

True freedom to walk away is only possible (or rather, was possible in the past) if not working for a richbag was possible. After the rich got to controlling all the land in the world, you cannot even go back to farming unless you have a capital that puts you in the 3% wealthiest.

Otherwise it is like being re-sold to a new slave owner on the slave market. You cannot seriously say choosing your servitude is “freedom”.

But sure, if choosing between Wise Masters and Good Masters is “freedom” to you, then the masters have truly enslaved you, mind, body and soul.

[Jub]

Yes, because that’s a you problem.

So having trouble working because of mental illness is a choice I've made and I should just be a big tough man like Ralin and work through it anyway. Fuck you.

Of course. What, you think you’re entitled to demand that people work teaching you whether they like it or not, or that people who decided to become teachers can’t tell you (possibly at one or more remove) how much they expect you to pay?

That's how it works at the grade school level, why should that change for post-secondary education?

I’m sorry, could you clarify? ‘Has political influence’ is pretty vague.

If I can afford to hire lobbyists, run adds, maybe even own a news network or two is my influence not greater than that of the average low or even middle-income person? How many common folks need to vote as a group to cancel out the political power of Fox News or CNN?

If your definition of coercion can be boiled down to ‘there are things I as a talking meatsack need to keep living and without them I will die’ then nothing can be voluntary and neither concept has any real meaning.

The issue is that those things are withheld from those who don't wish to engage with capitalism. It's not even legal for me to go out into the woods and build my own house or till the land and start a farm to sustain myself if I wished to fully disengage from society.

If I'm not free to disengage when I see fit to, how is the current system not forcing me to participate in it?

[The Romulan Republic]

Sure, if by slavery you mean "voluntarily working for an agreed upon amount." Contrary to what you'd have us believe many of us from the 'lower classes' actually have morals and aren't salivating to rob and murder anyone better off than us. You should stop projecting.

Try not working and not dying from hunger, jackass.

Why don’t moneybags actually work for a living? I guess all that work ain't “voluntary”, as you say.

Work will become voluntary for all the day we institute UBI sufficient to constitute a living wage.

[madd0ct0r]

Leave where?

True freedom to walk away is only possible (or rather, was possible in the past) if not working for a richbag was possible. After the rich got to controlling all the land in the world, you cannot even go back to farming unless you have a capital that puts you in the 3% wealthiest.

Otherwise it is like being re-sold to a new slave owner on the slave market. You cannot seriously say choosing your servitude is “freedom”.

But sure, if choosing between Wise Masters and Good Masters is “freedom” to you, then the masters have truly enslaved you, mind, body and soul.

Caveats. There are other models. I work for an employee owned company, another of my friends works at NotForProfit Welsh Water. Another works for an ngo.

I have been self employed as an analyst. The wife has worked full time as a translator, and now works for the university.

[Jub]

Caveats. There are other models. I work for an employee owned company, another of my friends works at NotForProfit Welsh Water. Another works for an ngo.

I have been self employed as an analyst. The wife has worked full time as a translator, and now works for the university.

I wouldn't mind seeing those models continue to grow but I don't know that they'll ever manage to truly change things on their own.

[Ralin]

So having trouble working because of mental illness is a choice I've made and I should just be a big tough man like Ralin and work through it anyway. Fuck you.

Oh I didn’t say you chose it. Just that it’s your problem (literally, because it’s something wrong with you). More importantly, it’s not Jeff Bezos’ fault.

That's how it works at the grade school level, why should that change for post-secondary education?

Cus you’re not a kid anymore?

More to the point, because the rest of the country hasn’t collectively agreed to set up free college. They should really, but there’s a whole world of difference between that being a good idea and you being literally entitled to it.

If I can afford to hire lobbyists, run adds, maybe even own a news network or two is my influence not greater than that of the average low or even middle-income person? How many common folks need to vote as a group to cancel out the political power of Fox News or CNN?

Only one, so long as that common person has the truth on their side and says the right thing to the right people at the right time.

The issue is that those things are withheld from those who don't wish to engage with capitalism. It's not even legal for me to go out into the woods and build my own house or till the land and start a farm to sustain myself if I wished to fully disengage from society.

That’s not a problem at all, because it’s a direct consequence of people having rights like bodily autonomy and control over their possessions. When one person’s needs come into conflict with another person’s rights rights trump other people’s welfare because otherwise we can’t have basic rights because there’s nothing that can’t be overruled if other people want to enough. That’s why for example we don’t ban abortions even though the fetus really needs the mother’s body to survive and why you can’t forcibly harvest someone’s organs for transplant.

Saying that you have a right to stuff like healthcare and housing and food falls apart because that means having a right that tramples over really basic rights, and then the whole system just falls apart. A right isn’t a right if you can’t use it to be a dick to everyone else.

If I'm not free to disengage when I see fit to, how is the current system not forcing me to participate in it?

Because other people have the right to own property and decide what to do with their time and bodies and you don’t have the right to create your own civilization from scratch using other peoples’ stuff?

[Ralin]

Leave where?

To hell, I guess? Or ideally somewhere more tolerable.

Otherwise it is like being re-sold to a new slave owner on the slave market. You cannot seriously say choosing your servitude is “freedom”.

But sure, if choosing between Wise Masters and Good Masters is “freedom” to you, then the masters have truly enslaved you, mind, body and soul.

Do you actually think that using weird ass idiosyncratic terminology makes you more convincing? Because comparing people literally owning you to people who own stuff you want or need having the upper hand when it comes to getting them to pay you with some of it is pretty damned different from most people’s standpoints.