Billionaires knowingly perpetuating a harmful economic system for their own gain. Politicians and high-level government officials knowingly perpetuating a harmful political and legal system for their own gain.
How I define harmful in this context: neglecting the needs of the many for the benefit of the few.
Knowingly: repeating an action despite clear evidence or representation from the majority under their control. Or restricting public access to something that is harming them with the intent to continue the harmful behaviour.
Obviously its a little more nuanced than that, but that’s the jist.
are you talking about these people’s access to food being restricted or about murder? if it’s the former, then i think that removing their power to harm would be more effective. if it’s the latter i think that’s kind of different from what the post is talking about.
i agree, but i don’t think that that contradicts the post. the path to a better world from this one is necessarily messy and in this situation nothing can be achieved cleanly. in this context i feel like you’d have to add a caveat to every single universal human right we’re working towards because there are people in the way. you aren’t arguing that they should denied food and shelter, youre arguing that they should be stopped from hurting people. i think you belong fully in the ‘everyone deserves to have their basic needs met’ camp
For everyone on Earth minus a slight statistical anomoly, I agree!
Like, you know how cleaning wipes say they kill 99.99% of germs? Well I want the needs of 99.99% of the population met.
who do you think doesnt deserve to have their needs met?
Billionaires knowingly perpetuating a harmful economic system for their own gain. Politicians and high-level government officials knowingly perpetuating a harmful political and legal system for their own gain.
How I define harmful in this context: neglecting the needs of the many for the benefit of the few.
Knowingly: repeating an action despite clear evidence or representation from the majority under their control. Or restricting public access to something that is harming them with the intent to continue the harmful behaviour.
Obviously its a little more nuanced than that, but that’s the jist.
are you talking about these people’s access to food being restricted or about murder? if it’s the former, then i think that removing their power to harm would be more effective. if it’s the latter i think that’s kind of different from what the post is talking about.
Any method that permanently stops them from continuing the harm.
I will be 100% aligned with this post when that’s achieved.
i agree, but i don’t think that that contradicts the post. the path to a better world from this one is necessarily messy and in this situation nothing can be achieved cleanly. in this context i feel like you’d have to add a caveat to every single universal human right we’re working towards because there are people in the way. you aren’t arguing that they should denied food and shelter, youre arguing that they should be stopped from hurting people. i think you belong fully in the ‘everyone deserves to have their basic needs met’ camp
You make a compelling point.