The laws underpinning and protecting their ownership, as well as the institutions enforcing them, are historical holdovers and were never truly legitimised. They also largely go against justice, freedom and the pursuit of happines, which they largely champion as their goals.
At the end of the day because the assumption that it shouldn’t be any different for a business is flawed. And specifically because we live in a reality where this assumption is largely taken as truth and as a result laws get written by Musk Bezos Koch Gates … and / or the companies they use to do their bidding. Which often enough have very bad outcomes, and are obviously bad laws, not only in hindsight.
While they are supposed to be written by the people for the people. Democratically. The Private company in this way wields authoritative Power over it’s employees and with this power it often enough opposes or distorts the will of the people because the few owners get outsized control over the actions of many workers customers and so on. As such if there isn’t a limit to private ownership of Capital/The means of production/Business there can never be anything more than a hollow democracy, a democracy where the word is used to describe itself but the spirit of the word can never be reached.
We are on lefty Memes here so a bunch of people likely want a less hollow and more true democracy in this sense. Which is why it should be different for a business or at large scale.
What does that social contact say, that you must give you everything if you are too successful?
And yes, I have never heard of Ayn Rand, no idea who they are or what they do. I only know now that she is a writer who died before I was born because I just googled it.
Yes the ones that draw the largest benefit from a society should contribute the largest amount back. If there is infinite growth for some and infinite servitude for others the social contract is breaking, in this way it’s much more reasonable to actually use taxation instead of just standing by while the society that all this wealth was extracted from takes violent revenge to their oppressors.
Without the rest of us billionaires couldn’t exist to begin with, so if their wealth starts breaking our governments, our communities, our collective self determination, which they currently are doing, we naturally should remind them that they are nothing without the rest of us. And yeah the taxhammer is likely the more appropriate tool than the guillotine or the Molotov cocktail.
Their wealth presupposes a largely peaceful society, why should we let them break it. This is for example why GG Art 14 has
(1) Property and the right of inheritance shall be guaranteed. Their content and limits shall be defined by the laws.
(2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.
written back to back in the same paragraph, the obvious implication being uses of property that go against the public good may be curtailed by the law.
How is it not legitimate ownership?
The laws underpinning and protecting their ownership, as well as the institutions enforcing them, are historical holdovers and were never truly legitimised. They also largely go against justice, freedom and the pursuit of happines, which they largely champion as their goals.
At least you could think about it that way.
I’m not seeing how that makes any of it illegitimate. If you make something you own it, right? Why should a business be any different?
At the end of the day because the assumption that it shouldn’t be any different for a business is flawed. And specifically because we live in a reality where this assumption is largely taken as truth and as a result laws get written by Musk Bezos Koch Gates … and / or the companies they use to do their bidding. Which often enough have very bad outcomes, and are obviously bad laws, not only in hindsight.
While they are supposed to be written by the people for the people. Democratically. The Private company in this way wields authoritative Power over it’s employees and with this power it often enough opposes or distorts the will of the people because the few owners get outsized control over the actions of many workers customers and so on. As such if there isn’t a limit to private ownership of Capital/The means of production/Business there can never be anything more than a hollow democracy, a democracy where the word is used to describe itself but the spirit of the word can never be reached.
We are on lefty Memes here so a bunch of people likely want a less hollow and more true democracy in this sense. Which is why it should be different for a business or at large scale.
So basically what you are saying is the more successful a business is, the more of it we should steal away from the rightful owners?
deleted by creator
What does that social contact say, that you must give you everything if you are too successful?
And yes, I have never heard of Ayn Rand, no idea who they are or what they do. I only know now that she is a writer who died before I was born because I just googled it.
deleted by creator
You are welcome to prove me wrong instead of making baseless accusations. I’m sorry the truth doesn’t fit into your narrative.
Yes the ones that draw the largest benefit from a society should contribute the largest amount back. If there is infinite growth for some and infinite servitude for others the social contract is breaking, in this way it’s much more reasonable to actually use taxation instead of just standing by while the society that all this wealth was extracted from takes violent revenge to their oppressors.
Without the rest of us billionaires couldn’t exist to begin with, so if their wealth starts breaking our governments, our communities, our collective self determination, which they currently are doing, we naturally should remind them that they are nothing without the rest of us. And yeah the taxhammer is likely the more appropriate tool than the guillotine or the Molotov cocktail.
Their wealth presupposes a largely peaceful society, why should we let them break it. This is for example why GG Art 14 has
written back to back in the same paragraph, the obvious implication being uses of property that go against the public good may be curtailed by the law.