What with the general tone of Eat The Rich and the occasional desire for vigilante justice it kinda does.
No, Iām a believer in progressive tax rates, but a globally morally defensible marginal tax rate of say 75% for the wealthiest 1% ($48K household income) doesnāt seem out of line.
Now that is curious. I make a fairly clear claim about the moral responsibility that comes with the wealth that most (although definitely not all) of us here enjoy (and the fact that such responsibility is not easily borne), and you equate it with me implying that none of us have a responsibility?
My point about noting that most of us here are fairly greedy fatcats is not to imply that being a fairly greedy fatcat is just fine. Understanding that weāre not particularly different from the people weāre condemning is not saying thereās nothing to condemn.
But surely weāve gone beyond the point that we have to feel weāre more moral than average.
The point is that weāre a hell of a lot more likely to influence people and effect change by not pretending how weāre better than everyone else, and itās all the fault of those greed-heads over there. Just about anyone outside of the developed world will see through it to the underlying āIām not getting my fair share of the developed world spoilsā, and thatās not really an attractive moral philosophy.
Or, as Iāve tried to teach my children, demand from others only what you yourself are willing to give.
4 Likes
Iām filing that one away for future use, thank you very much.
3 Likes
im just not sure this makes sense. it does nothing to help the middle class of the western world for them to pay a progressive top rate of 75%. no one would stand for it. but. then maybe thatās your goal.
we dont have a world government, and itās not clear weād be better for one. we dont have one world currency, and itās not clear weād want one. so in this sense it seems a distraction to talk about the āglobalā 1%.
the point of the phrase āthe 1%ā is actually less about money, and more about behavior. particulary, how the most wealthy people in the world have gamed the system, and how they are causing everyone real hardship as a result. ( ex. the imf )
reigning in the excesses of the uber wealthy by holding them accountable for the laws theyāre knowingly breaking would be the best global moral action we could take. ( okay, that and moving off fossil fuels, noting the two issues are not entirely unrelated. )
separate from that: implementing progressive taxation within each country, relative to the the economy of that country, would be good. in the us, establishing a 75 or 90 percent rate above some relatively high 200, 300k income would greatly help the american middle class leaving them able to afford a decent life - a better life - in the process.
talking about the global 1% and ridiculously high taxes on the middle class seems like a smokescreen for the real issues.
6 Likes
Guess you havenāt read āMan of Steel, Woman of Tissue Paperā?
2 Likes
Itās only as I get older that I understand just how immensely important that emergency backup is, even if it is never used. The ability to take tiny risks (because you have an ultimate backstop) means that you can increase life outcomes in dozens of ways (quitting bad jobs, taking a chance on work-related education, etc.)
Itās why Iām a proponent of fairly steep progressive taxation. Being able to provide a minimal level of financial security to all members of society would allow all of us the greater variety of choices that many of us enjoyed to much long term benefit.
9 Likes
Iām curious what the arguments against āvigilante justiceā would be given a demonstrably corrupt (i.e. unjust) legal system.
āIt might be unfair to rich people!ā Yes, and the current system is demonstrably unfair to poor people.
āIt could go too far! Thereās no mechanism for restraint!ā Thereās no mechanism for restraint for connected criminals in the current system. In fact, the current system does the opposite ā it incentivizes them by offering them banking services used by the same heads of state who are nominally charged with stopping organized crime.
As far as āEat the Richā goesā¦well, Iām all for playing by the rules, and I have no objection to people who succeed by playing by the rules to decide what to do with the spoils. But what weāre finding out now (or, for many of us, merely confirming) is that there are no rules. Well, what comes to mind now is that saying: āThey only call it class warfare when the poor fight back.ā
8 Likes
Greed (1924), a classic film by Erich von Stroheim, pretty much says it all. https://vimeo.com/142012482
Long and compelling.
2 Likes
Iāve heard of that, having long liked the book itās based on, but the length is daunting. Thanks for the reminder!
My point was what is morally defensible - not whatās practical. Hell, weāre both too greedy to want any truly moral system of equality. We both know whatās just, but we want more.
In other words, absolutely fight for a better society as is our moral duty to do. But letās can the moral righteousness while doing so. Letās recognize that characterizing having 4x more wealth than I do as pathological is far more about massaging our own egos rather than actually helping make our system more just. After all, most of us have 4x more wealth than most of the people on the planet.
Frankly, I find the implication Iām seeing here that you cannot drive change without an innate feeling of moral superiority to be quite disturbing. Itās something we see in the egotistical leanings of the worst sort of churches.
1 Like
Iām certain that not-insignificant part of the world thinks of 9/11 as āvigilante justiceā for exactly that reason.
[Added in case for some reason itās not screamingly obvious:] Needless to say, Iām not a fan of vigilante justice,
1 Like
We need to reach deep into our collaborative, empathic psyches to find
new ways to negotiate a global commons in which we collectively,
repeatedly, and with great creativity reimagine what a legitimate
economy can look like.
This sounds a bit fluffy. Reaching into āemphatic psycheā? I fully agree that we have a problem, but this is not a solution. I donāt know that there is one - this is the state of the human condition. IMHO you are gravely mistaken that there is anything new in this - corruption and the link between big money, crime and politics has always been as strong as it is now (at least as far as written records go). Itās who we are.
Best we can do is regulate better - have broader bans on ātax evasionā (whatever the mechanism), so at least the healthy part of the system can do something about this - most importantly seize all the money and prosecute.
2 Likes
Donāt watch the whole thing. Itās not about the story line which is Biblical, but the images. Look at it like a painting a scene at a time. Stroheimās imagery is very expressive and powerful no need to approach it with our idea of narrative cinema. He was a painter of moving imagesāand among the best at that!
1 Like
Iām curious what the arguments against āvigilante justiceā would be given a demonstrably corrupt (i.e. unjust) legal system.
You canāt enforce the law by breaking it. If you start your vigilante justice campaign, so may the other side counter by their own vigilante justice on you. What you get is war and little chance to make things better.
I am not saying there are no cases where this makes sense e.g. dictatorships, oppressive regimes, but youād be hard pressed to describe any western democracy as such.
demonstrably corrupt (i.e. unjust) legal system
I think this remark is out of place if you are describing most western democracies. Judiciary systems here are better than any human race has ever seen - though not without problems. Regulatory systems - especially in the US - have deep problems with influence of big money but this is not ālegal systemā per se.
The four hour ārestoredā Greed has been reconstructed through the use of a lot of stills and intertitles. An invaluable experience for film scholars, but for a first viewing one might be better off with the old two hour version, if you can find it.
1 Like
Letās recognize that characterizing having 4x more wealth than I do as
pathological is far more about massaging our own egos rather than
actually helping make our system more just.
The struggle is about levelling the playing field. Some people and corporations - because they have money - get to cheat the system with impunity. This is immoral, and yet not illegal. Hence the moral argument. Not because somebody has more money, but because they are cheating and are not being punished for it.
ā Edit: quoted wrong part of the message
3 Likes
Considering the history of my family, the word āpogromā comes to mind. Otherwise the arguments against vigilante justice are pretty darn obvious.
2 Likes
Ya know, if youāre going to accuse others of self-righteousness (which is, itself a form of self-righteousness: āIām ever so much more humble than you are!ā), and if youāre immediately going to turn around and accuse others of moral failings (ātoo greedy to want any truly moral system of equalityā), then maybe you should try speaking for yourself instead of using the first person plural?
So are you saying we should choose our attitudes towards others, goals, courses of action, and (perhaps most importantly ) what we oppose without regard to what is moral?
Are you saying itās disturbing to choose a course of action based on what one believes to be moral?
I ask because I cannot conceive of a state of affairs in which I orient myself and my goals in opposition to those of others without believing my goals and attitudes to be morally superior to those of the people whom I oppose. If I did not so believe, how could I justify my opposition without abandoning the concept of morality altogether?
Great, but can you rebut my argument instead of just repeating your opinion? Perhaps youāre not a fan of vigilante justice, but is it better than no justice at all? Is it better than a purely hypothetical world in which the wealthy prey upon the poor with the sanction of the law?
3 Likes
Only in a context in which there is a ānormal justiceā with which to contrast the notion of āvigilante justiceā.
Iāll ask you as well: maybe āvigilante justiceā is bad. Is it worse than no justice at all? Is it better than āmight makes rightā?
If the officially sanctioned law is demonstrably unjust, then doesnāt the concept of āvigilante justiceā disappear entirely? Donāt we end up with multiple competing factions with incompatible forms of justice, none of whom can claim the mantle of ālawā?
2 Likes
I donāt recall any place in the OP that says these problems are new. However, the current (and growing) wealth gap in the U.S. is new ā the worst itās been since the infamous Gilded Age. To say āthis is the way itās always beenā is to ignore history.
And to say that greed is just who we are is also to ignore history. Itās probably more prevalent in the U.S., which is arguably the most individualistic society on earth, and in recorded history. A consequence is the common failure to realize that weāre all in this together, and that we built what we have together (well, slave and underpaid labor built most of it, but I hope you see my point). Societies are not built on selfish greed; theyāre built by the opposite, people working together. Actually, your recommended action ā seize all the money and prosecute ā would be an example of that.
2 Likes
