this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
748 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19145 readers
3341 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SirDerpy 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If I were in a position of power I'd hopefully willingly give up some privacy. But, no law can sit in judgement, let alone something so simple.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Agreed. Also to add, it's much better than having almost no power and almost no privacy like right now.

Besides, maybe you can think of another way to restrain the accumulationists at the top of society.

Right now being a billionaire is zero risk, zero downside. It's not a trade-off but a strict upgrade from the middle class. No wonder the billionaires are insane and detached from reality.

So either risk (like randomly executing some of them every year), or a downside, or both have to be added to the equation to keep the top of the society in check.

[–] SirDerpy 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Taxes, government ownership, or communal ownership. For example, tax all wealth above $100m at 100%.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Taxes can be imposed after the billionaires are afraid to bribe the government.

Right now there is zero risk, zero downside for a billionaire to finance elections, offer revolving door opportunities, control via ownership almost all the media. Also zero risk, zero downside for the public officials to whore themselves out. All the political whores are walking and jetting around in safety and in luxurious comfort. Why would these folks change their behaviours?

Right now when a government official renegs on their promises, there is zero risk, zero downside. Politicians can promise to raise taxes on the superrich and just never do it, and zero risk, zero downside.

[–] SirDerpy 1 points 4 months ago

Well, privacy can be infringed as a motivator after tax and campaign finance reform. Prison is a bigger motivator.