To anyone who supports capitalism or otherwise opposes socialism:
Do you support the idea that one man can accumulate enough wealth to own all land of this Earth, making everyone born in his empire under his rule as long as he can kill to defend it? What prevents capitalism from accomplishing this in law? What law exists that limits the borders of nations?
Why, then, must we endure a system where a single man owning the Earth and enslave it is a feature, not a bug?
https://dice.camp/@sean/114698774200264413
I just wanna know what people think. Why must this be maintained? Why is any opposition to capping wealth just the end of the world when it probably would save it, just logically thinking it through?
If only one man owns everything, then expropriation would be really fast in theory
Not if he’s surrounded by dead bodies, but capitalism can’t prevent that either.
UHMMM AKSHUALLY (🤓) a single man cannot own all of earth, given how liberalism is heavily propagated and maintained by concepts such as nationalism and by extension xenophobia, racism, bigotry - all that fun stuff.
If a single man or an entity tried to create some pan-cosmopolitan world where every piece of land is under a single world-wide country, you bet your ass there’s gonna be countless of reactionary national liberation movements to proclaim sovereignty.
deleted by creator
I look forward to seeing an evolution of thought, theory and practice in the next few years.
I think there are effective ways to undo this problem that are not born yet
It’s an interesting and hard problem. Because most billionaires don’t own billions in cash - they own companies that are worth billions. These companies also don’t have billions of assets - they are valued at billions by investors.
The problem is that musks and bezoses of the world didn’t start with billions - they started with millions and lucked out. So to prevent this from happening you need some system that can fairly catch a moment where a business becomes too big and do something about it.
You can’t really cut the majority owner out, because well they own the company - you can’t just take away what they own. But you can’t really pay them some ceiling cost either - you’ll just end up making someone else a billionaire.
What prevents capitalism from accomplishing this in law?
Antitrust laws accomplish this in law
Anti-trust laws prevented the violence that capitalism caused in the middle east the past 30 years? When did they prevent it? What evidence do you have that anti-trust laws are preventing this from happening in the modern era? What evidence do you have that anti-trust laws are more effective in creating a peaceful world compared to just trying democratic socialism (as opposed to the status quo of democratic capitalism prevalent in the west)?
The statement was with respect to “one man” owning everything on the earth, and whether there is a law that would stop this. And there is such a law.
Antitrust laws don’t prevent capitalism or the violence it causes. I was just responding to your point about there being some sort of natural or legal conclusion to capitalism where one guy owns everything. That conclusion is easily avoidable and was considered over 100 years ago when they passed the first antitrust laws to prevent the railroads from owning everything etc. Your post didn’t seem to consider antitrust laws.
It is a natural conclusion. Capitalism consolidates power with those who own capital. Since capitalism naturally tends towards monopolistic industry, those who write and enforce laws will be capitalists. Who have no motivation to regulate themselves.
