• SirDerpy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    If humans constantly tempted by wealth and power, who then fall victim to it, have their right to privacy infringed, then they’ll go right on feeding their addictions, no matter the cost of maintenance of privacy?

    • hypnoton@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t view privacy as an unconditional right. Also perfect privacy is impossible.

      If you are a small individual whose decisions will not make big waves in society, you can be completely anonymous as far as I am concerned.

      If you command great resources and can singlehandedly significantly affect my world with a stroke of a pen, I need to watch you, because you are dangerous to my world.

      Right now our society is exactly upside down in this aspect.

      • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        If I were in a position of power I’d hopefully willingly give up some privacy. But, no law can sit in judgement, let alone something so simple.

        • hypnoton@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Agreed. Also to add, it’s much better than having almost no power and almost no privacy like right now.

          Besides, maybe you can think of another way to restrain the accumulationists at the top of society.

          Right now being a billionaire is zero risk, zero downside. It’s not a trade-off but a strict upgrade from the middle class. No wonder the billionaires are insane and detached from reality.

          So either risk (like randomly executing some of them every year), or a downside, or both have to be added to the equation to keep the top of the society in check.

          • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Taxes, government ownership, or communal ownership. For example, tax all wealth above $100m at 100%.

            • hypnoton@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Taxes can be imposed after the billionaires are afraid to bribe the government.

              Right now there is zero risk, zero downside for a billionaire to finance elections, offer revolving door opportunities, control via ownership almost all the media. Also zero risk, zero downside for the public officials to removed themselves out. All the political removed are walking and jetting around in safety and in luxurious comfort. Why would these folks change their behaviours?

              Right now when a government official renegs on their promises, there is zero risk, zero downside. Politicians can promise to raise taxes on the superrich and just never do it, and zero risk, zero downside.

              • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Well, privacy can be infringed as a motivator after tax and campaign finance reform. Prison is a bigger motivator.