Not promoting violence in any way. Just kind of a thought exercise.

  • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    He said he wasn’t promoting violence. Let’s infer that “kill” should be considered metaphorical, and asset forfeiture is more to OP’s point. Civil or criminal forfeiture means - hippity hoppity, it’s all now state property.

    The government could operate them as arms length state agencies, or break the monopolies and sell fragmented assets back into public hands. The latter is more likely. The 1% can either be jailed or returned to commoner life without their assets.

    The assets themselves would lose some of their nominal value because they are currently configured for maximum wealth. Anti-trust breakups would devalue the assets moderately because the configuration would be suboptimal for profit, and presumably re-optimized for public good.

    As to debt and taxes, the asset seizure and sale would only put a small dent in it. The profound change would be the lack of lobbyists and campaign funding to bend and torture tax codes to serve the 1%. A fair system would be amazing and enduring here.

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      He said he wasn’t promoting violence. Let’s infer that “kill” should be considered metaphorical

      I choose to interpret it as “if the vast majority of the 0.1% died mysteriously over the course of a week or two”.

      • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Perhaps from a heart attack from the shock of state forfeiture and the promise of an ordinary life, at best. Perhaps by their own hand from the prospect.

        ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)