• Enma Ai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Taking away (extreme) wealth. There’s no reason one person should have that much. There’s countless better ways to use that money/wealth than for one persons extravagant lifestyle. And even if they don’t have an extravagant lifestyle, what are they gonna do with it? Doubt they will build infrastructure out of good will with it.

      • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        So take away ownership of a company just because it’s too successful? That wealth is mostly in company ownership, so are you really suggesting we steal away legitimate ownership in successful companies?

        • Enma Ai@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes. Fuck Capitalism.

          It’s not stealing their legitimate ownership. They don’t have legitimate ownership.

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Because they didn’t make the business. If you started a business would you be happy to give away that ownership to every new employee you hire? If so, that’s your choice, have fun.

                • Enma Ai@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes I’d be happ to.

                  Who cares who made it? And it’s not the CEO that made it. The workers made it. Ever seen a big corporation with only one employee, its founder? No.

                  Without the workers a company is nothing. Without it’s founder the company couldn’t care less.

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So it doesn’t matter to you that you had to spend millions on startup costs, and that the business probably won’t make money for a year or two, you keep that all to yourself, continue to pay employees, and give employees equal ownership?

                    Yeah, let me know how that works out for you.

            • kugel7c@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

                • kugel7c@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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?

        • someacnt@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, why do we have 'too big to fail" companies? Isn’t that counterproductive to having a robust society?

          • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s how you compete in the world. Imagine for a second if the US didn’t bail out the automotive companies, I think Ford would have survived, but that’s about it, no more American competition for them. If they also failed, then we might not have any US car companies, how bad would that have been for our society?

            Or the banks, could you imagine how screwed we would be if the whole baking system collapsed? Even the small banks were in trouble, it’s not a solution to just split them all up.

            • Dark_Blade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This is why I don’t really ‘get’ the perspective that a lot of Lemmings seem to have. Sure, it’d be nice to live in an ideal society of some sort, but that’s not really possible in a world where money is everything.