Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.

Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion

Edit2: IP= intellectal property

Edit3: sort by controversal

  • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
    11·
    2 days ago

    I guess I just feel like the playing field should be a lot more even at the start.

    But the playing field is never going to be equal. There are always going to be some people more disadvantaged than others, so having the same cap for everyone could leave people in unequitable situations.

    I think a hard cap of like 2.5 million could be fair, because it at least balances some of the inequality by not having people be outrageously rich to the point where it’s unachievable for anyone not born into it. Like, inheriting 250 million or more is far more than anyone could ever obtain in their life normally.

    The disabled cousin might not need the windfall if we didn’t let people hoard so much. I’m just not sure how it’s morally acceptable for those who have rich generous relatives to have a life so different from someone who doesn’t, though.

    So in that case, all disabled people should live in poverty because it’s not fair if only some do? If we can’t help everybody then nobody should be helped? I’m not sure that’s a great goal to achieve.

    • RBWells@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 days ago

      So in that case, all disabled people should live in poverty because it’s not fair if only some do? If we can’t help everybody then nobody should be helped? I’m not sure that’s a great goal to achieve.

      I’m not sure how you jumped to this. My point is that if more of the money went back into society in general, maybe all disabled people who could not work could get a more reasonable amount of money and care and live more comfortably, instead of the few who have a rich uncle.