Everytime I look at small problems or big global problems, if you follow the money trail, it all leads to some billionaire who is either working towards increasing their wealth or protecting their wealth from decreasing.

Everything from politics, climate change, workers rights, democratic government, technology, land rights, human rights can all be rendered down to people fighting another group of people who defend the rights of a billionaire to keep their wealth or to expand their control.

If humanity got rid of or outlawed the notion of any one individual owning far too much money than they could ever possibly spend in a lifetime, we could free up so much wealth and energy to do other things like save ourselves from climate change.

  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    In the US we used to have a very high tax rate for those who were extremely wealthy, Distributing the excess back to the government/citizenry. We need the return back to that.

    The citizenry need to ask for that, as well as for ranked-choice voting.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      7 months ago

      As far as voting is concerned everyone who is eligible to vote should get one vote. It is a terrible idea to do anything other than that.

      As far as taxes go, we should simply encourage people who are wealthy to fund charities. Also the tax rate is already pretty high. Maybe we just need to increase the number of rungs on the scale. I don’t think millionaires or billionaires have anything against taxes or at least nothing compared to the rest of us.

      • TBi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        You should look into ranked voting. You still only get one vote, just if your preferred candidate is eliminated you can propose your second/third choice as well. This allows you to vote with your morals but also strategically.

        • ILikeBoobies
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          This isn’t correct

          You get 1 vote but you’re giving points to the 1st/2nd/3rd option

          Most people differ on first option so someone politically between the two usually gets to win

          The hopeful outcome is that you get candidates further left or right than what is presently available even though they wouldn’t win

          • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            The problem exists, but I do wonder if the average voter can understand it. We have a lot of difficulty getting average people to understand basic concepts.

      • Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        One party system?

        “Oh wow so undemocratic holy shit you psycho how dare you even suggest a thing?”

        Two party system?

        “Oh woooow so much democracy everyone gets to choose between two options. Perfection achieved. Aliens cross the galaxy to study our high advanced flaeless two party system in a desperate hope to emulate it”

        More then two parties?

        “No way there should be more options, that’s just crazy you psycho how dare you suggest this to me just shut the fuck up and vote for the blue conservatives.”

        I hope some day you think outside the box. More like a prison then a box really…

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          What is a “blue conservative”

          If your so far extreme that you see everyone as the enemy then I am worried