Edit: I intentionally put "bad people" in the title in order to provoke. ๐
If you don't know what I'm talking about:
Black Mirror - Hated in the Nation
I'm not sure how to limit the scope of this discussion, since it touches upon so many areas of morale:
- the value of life
- the right to kill
- vengeance/revenge
- crime
- good and evil
So I encourage you to be articulate and to follow some structure: "what(thesis) - why(evidence) - what (thesis)". Other easy to follow variations, such as "why(background + evidence) - what(thesis)" or "what - why - what - by the way(discussion)" or just a simple "what" are of course good too. I'm not trying exclude comments, and I won't, just encouraging an easy to read discussion. As for me:
I would not kill using a Death Note, unless for some utterly personal vendetta. I would also not kill those that did, if we were talking about some sort of society wide phenomenon. I believe that taking action against human life on the macro scale, such as a nation state against another or such as one confined justice system against one of its subjects (state versus an individual, for instance) or in the fictive case of the above mentioned media, is wrong. This is because I don't believe it right to through politics or legislation qualify or quantify the value of a human life, such as is done in jurisdictions that allow capital punishment. While I'm against such "marco actions" on human life, I for some reason have less of a problem empathizing with the individual victims involved, which is to say, I don't think I'd rage against, say, a grieving mother avenging her murdered child by killing the murderer. But then again, not all individuals have the ability or the capacity to exact revenge and maybe they have to rely on their nation state for some kind of restitution? My opinion is probably logical mess, full of contradictions, but there it is. Feel free to poke holes, in a kind manner!
killing the top 1% wealthiest would solve like 99% of issues
That's 1-in-100 people worldwide, likely including you.
EDIT: Disregard most all of this as I got my numbers mixed up. I no longer stand by the point I was trying to make.
~~If they make less than $450k USD annually, then they're not in the top 1% of just the US. In order to be part of the global top 1% then they'd need even more than that, likely quite a bit more.~~
~~Not to make assumptions about someone I don't know but I'd put it at about 1% odds that they make that much.~~
These were my numbers last time I took the test. Adding my wife's income, and my zero income, we're in the 8%. It take very little to land in the 1%.
You have it exactly backwards. Compare yourself against worldwide, as I said.
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i
I apparently forgot to reply to this earlier, but I got my numbers mixed up and that's where my misinterpretation came from.
I think my mistake came from thinking of the US top 1% as some 3.3 million ish slots on the list, then forgetting that by adding in the rest of the world wide population the number of slots for people who would qualify would expand out to some 80 million ish slots because that quantity is determined by a set percentage.
I played around with the numbers on that website and it seems like you need to make more than about $68,300 USD annually (after taxes) in order to be considered in the top 1% globally. I'll also agree that (based on my experience where I live) that's just a decent job and not a particularly good one. Because of that I would agree that this person's filter of the top 1% globally easily could include they them-self.
I think I get the idea that they were going for by trying to include more people than the usual "all billionaires" I've seen in these comments, but yeah the specific number they chose seems like it would include hundreds of millions of people who I think likely would still prove a net benefit to society.
I was making $70K when I first saw that site which is why I remembered being in the top 1%. Marrying a Filipino really opened my eyes. Their min wage (varies a bit by occupation and state) is about $12 a day.
I'm RICH BEYOCH! (Well, not now. Haven't had a decent job in 2 years, none now.)
What kind of mathematically illiterate nonsense is that. You think to be in the global 1% takes MORE MONEY than being in the US 1%????
You understand that requires the global average wealth to be HIGHER than the US right?
Besides the top 1% of the 1% (billionaire class) are a lot more problematic than someone who makes 450k/yr.... That's just a good doctor in the west. Plus Forbes publishes a billionaire list.
Thought I had posted a response about it earlier, butit was a mental mixup I had made. I think my mistake came from thinking of the top US 1% as some 3.3 ish million slots on some hypothetical leaderboard then forgetting that when you introduce the rest of the global population the top 1% is going to expand to some 80 million slots instead of remaining the now more exclusive 3.3 million slots at the top.
I'm also not the guy who claimed that offing the entire top 1% would solve most problems. I'd also agree with what you're saying especially after seeing the global statistics in my comment's other reply. If memory serves, according to that link 1 person would need to make more than $68,300 USD annually (after taxes) to be in the top 1% which I'll also whole heatedly agree includes a lot of people who I think both earned that money fairly and are very positive net benefits to society.
I will say I think the intention of the 1% idea was the include more people than just billionaires as there are plenty of multi millionaires who are just as bad off as the billionaires but with less capital, but I also think a lot more thought should be put into any such hypothetical list rather than just looking at raw numbers for net worth, income, etc.