mycodesucks @ mycodesucks @lemmy.world

When I get bored with the conversation/tired of arguing I will simply terse

---

Read more

Posts

20

Comments

367

Joined

1 yr. ago

There is a significant difference between "lose control of the company" and "not being the exclusive beneficiary of the success of the company", and it's a strawman argument to suggest otherwise.

Even with a 1 billion dollar cap, the vast majority of companies are not worth nearly a billion dollars, and of those that are, you would have to double that before that owner would not have a controlling interest, and while I acknowledge that the owner losing control of the company is not necessarily an intentional result of this kind of rule, by the time a company reaches a value where that would even be a threat, they have such an outsized impact on society through their operation that it is actually irresponsible for any single person or small group of people to have such control. Organizations can grow to have outsized impact on millions of lives, entire communities, or even the direction of history. What is reprehensible isn't capping their control of such an organization - it's allowing that control to impact the world with absolutely no check by those its operation affects. I don't know your country of origin, but if you are American you at least pay lip service to the idea that power derives from the consent of those over whom it is wielded. I would suggest to you the radical interpretation is that that should only apply to government when extremely large companies have much, much more power to impact peoples' daily lives.

do they start losing control of shares until they’re below that threshold?

Sounds good to me. Dole them out to employees.

I hope for everyone's sake you're right, but if that does come to pass it will come as a surprise to me.

I agree with your conclusion, but I don't agree that it's feasible. Any tax solutions will involve legislation by a government owned by those same interests. And even if you managed it in major economies, you'd just force the climate issues into places with fewer qualms about their fuel usage. I'd love to see this problem solved, but my faith in our ability to resolve it is far less than yours.

Okay, I can see how you got that from my post. I was a bit hyperbolic in my original post, and I apologize.

I'm not REALLY making a moral equivalence argument or saying anything about comparing the horrors of slavery to work... I'm saying getting rid of slavery was easier to enact because there was an alternative system that happened to be ultimately profitable for the rich at the same time. Yes, wars have been fought to stop abolition, but at the end of the day, after slavery was abolished, the rich found a way to stay rich almost everywhere - abolition came at very little real change to the wealth structure of society. They had a supply of labor to exploit for profit during slavery, and they had one after. The fact is that the moral and financial interests both aligned on making abolition happen - it wasn't caused by pure strength of willpower. And yes, the system we have now is MUCH MUCH better than true slavery, but it's still a stretch to use the current system as a beacon of hope.

On climate change the moral and financial interests are NOT aligned in a clear way. There are always still going to be financial incentives to screw the climate for extra money. By comparison, if slavery were somehow legal again TODAY, it's not clear it would be profitable for anybody to actually do it. That difference will make climate goals harder to enact.

Not to be defeatist, but...

We didn't abolish slavery... we just replaced it with wage slavery. Sure, the workers are free to leave - and try to survive with no other job opportunities and no money. In fact, for the employers, this is actually preferable to real slavery, because there are lower upfront costs for your slaves, they don't try to run away or rebel, you don't have to pay for their healthcare or long term care, and in many places government tax dollars will subsidize their living expenses. Employers have it WAY better with wage slaves than real slaves.

Child labour is still alive and well in many countries, and even there the ball is rolling on rolling THAT back in the US at least.

I admire your positivity, but I'll believe it when I see it.

That was all Bing's idea. My prompt only included "smiling children".

Maybe the guidance is "Fix your nightmare faces."

Sounds like you need some on-the-spot guidance.

When Shrek is outlawed, only outlaws will have Shrek.

Did somebody say Catholic Shrek?

Untrue. I grew up on the Super Mario Brothers Super Show.

Can't give you a real clip atm, but this might suffice.

More work than I wanted to put into this, but in the interests of meme integrity, I just personally checked out Zyuranger episode 34, and yes, while it's not a direct literal translation of the original Japanese (She doesn't call him a baby - she just says "CRY CRY CRY!"), it's accurate in spirit.

Rest easy. My shitpost is legitimate.

we’re all a bunch of baby-eating, baby-fucking Satan worshippers,

God, I hope it's not the same baby...

There is no way anybody would shut him down as long as he's not violating the conditions imposed by the judgement. As long as he is working, every dime he's making is going to pay his victims. It wouldn't make ANY sense whatsoever to shut him down.