• iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Maybe if it actually would make the world better, you >could have a utilitarian argument

    I have no doubt it would make the world better if you kill them and distribute their money (in minecraft) to I don’t know social housing, public hospitals and schools (not claiming they will be used with %100 efficiency or %100 ethically but will be orders of magnitudes better than what billionaires are doing with them in maybe all cases). If it turns out to be a billionaire whose businesses we are currently addicted to (not gonna name names but you know), then there will be a period of inconvenience but we will get over it and adapt.

    • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Obviously redistributing their wealth would be good. Killing them doesn’t automatically give you their wealth to redistribute, and redistributing without killing them is also a possibility you seem to be ignoring.

      • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        yes fair point. I am also ok to give them the following choices:

        1- live in a poor country with minimum wage with no opportunity to change jobs and a wealth cap (your annual earnings from other sources should be comparable to annual earnings of a minimal wage job). I have the feeling that after a couple months they will commit suicide. for billionaires directly affiliated with arms companies, this should be a country which was recently a war zone.

        2- trial by combat. no wait that is game of thrones got confused.

        This extra punishment’s purpose should be to act as a deterrant