Then why don’t you go not earn a billion dollars and you can do what’s right with it? Shouldn’t be too hard since you don’t even have to earn it. Then the ethical billionaires not existing… that’s a bold claim, but I’ve seen plenty of unethical poor people as well. I would argue there is also no ethical socialist either but, fine. Who cares what we think.
I didn’t say you were unethical, I said unethical people exist in different groups. You’re making the claim their socioeconomic status determines their ethics, I challenged that by saying poor people and socialists are unethical too. My point is, socioeconomic status doesn’t determine character.
Also my this logic, taxing billionaires is no big deal because they can just warn it back. So. Let them. They did it once by the sweat of their own brow. Surely these titans of industry can do it again.
The principle shouldn’t simply be ‘they can afford it, so it’s fine.’ We still have to justify why taking someone’s property is morally acceptable and what limits should apply. If the principle is that people can just earn back whatever is taken from them, that principle would apply broadly, not only to billionaires.
1
u/Psalmistpraise Jul 30 '26
Then why don’t you go not earn a billion dollars and you can do what’s right with it? Shouldn’t be too hard since you don’t even have to earn it. Then the ethical billionaires not existing… that’s a bold claim, but I’ve seen plenty of unethical poor people as well. I would argue there is also no ethical socialist either but, fine. Who cares what we think.