As a first pass, you’ve accumulated all that money, thus you’ve actively or passively, knowingly or unknowingly, taken advantage of a perverse systemic bug that allows that sort of money to accumulate in any one person’s hands to begin with.

But point me at any given billionaire and I can provide more context-specific examples, sure.

▲

vixen99 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Interesting bug! Why not tell us about this assertion by providing your own examples?

	▲	yawpitch 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Elon. Jeff. Donald. Honestly just randomly select a billionaire.

▲

AnimalMuppet 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Start further back. You need to defend that allowing that much money to accumulate in any person's hands is indeed a "perverse systemic bug".

The default framework is one of private property. If you make it, it's yours, and (modulo taxation), nobody has the right to take it from you. In that framework, it's not a bug that, if someone makes a billion dollars, they can accumulate a billion dollars.

So, do you reject that framework? If so, on what authority? Given that it's the default framework, "I reject it" doesn't cut it. "I think it's immoral" is slightly better, but you need to demonstrate that someone accumulating that much money is more immoral than taking it from them would be.

Or are you claiming that it's immoral for any one person to receive that much money? In a free economy, if others voluntarily exchange that much money for what the person supplies, why is it immoral? What is your moral authority for claiming that voluntary transactions are morally wrong, just because too many of them go to one person?

▲

yawpitch 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

Since we’re playing this game, prove to me there exists a default framework. Further, prove to me that said default framework is one that includes billionaires, the concept having been utterly alien throughout the vast majority of human history.

Any system that allows more wealth than is necessary to accumulate into one pair of hands while another pair hasn’t enough food is inherently immoral.

Also you’ve never, not once, been operating within a free economy… the only people I’ve met in life who have witnessed such an economy have gone to extreme lengths to escape it. Or they’ve died.

	▲	AnimalMuppet 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The default framework is the existing legal system. There is one, therefore one exists. In that framework, there is no legal limit on how much you can earn. That framework is the default for the legal understanding of what is right and wrong. If you want us to change it, the burden of proof is on you. Bare assertions of "that's immoral" aren't going to be enough. You need to make a much more robust case than that, one that's not just soundbites. (At least here. Most people here can think at deeper level than soundbites.)