if we limited fortunes to a billion and spread the overfortunes equally around everyone, wd we avoid extnctn?

Question

ie, wd it so reduce overpower and lift underpay, that world violence wd be reduced to survivable levels? ie, wd it be perceived as sufficient increase of justice, to reduce violence [oppressing the weaker [slavery, exploitation, warmongering, cannonfoddering, plunderers plundering], attacking the richer [mafias coming up from the bottom, the plundered plundering the plunderers] to survivable levels?

it probably wouldnt reduce violence enough for happiness [peace, safety, global quietness] but it might be enough for survival - the reduction of overpower would not be great, but the reduction of the most extreme, most violence-generating, underpay would be significant

would limiting fortunes to $100 million bring survival and global calm? reduction of tyrannous overpower and corruption would start to be significant, the richest would be ceasing to be: above the democratic law, writing laws to suit themselves, breaking the law with impunity & with the protection of the lawkeepers

Answer 1

Why a million, lets start with what you make, if you do make money, do you? I want you to give half of what you make to a guy or girl, down on his or her luck, holding a sign " will work for food" and every week give that same person half of your money.

It is going to make that person lazier and lazier. Why even hold up the sign anymore, He will demand that you bring it to him.

Yep take from the rich and give to the poor. and keep them poor!

Answer 2

I also read some of your other questions. Basically, your opinion is to level the reward system that is now in place in the world today. In other words, the carrot and stick.

In ancient times, the valued coinage wasn't money but several other things like power, strength, bravery, etc. The people with these qualities got the adoration of most others. In ancient times, when there was little money to go around, we still had war, slavery, exploitation, and so on - just like what you said.

In other words, would limiting fortunes do any good? Also, we're still here after all that time so extinction isn't really an issue.

For example, if we put a cap on monetary and property gain, would that stop me from achieving power through religious or tribal means? Would it stop me from spreading rumors among my neighbors so that they would destroy each other and I will be there afterwards to profit from the destruction? Not me personally, but given human nature, someone else would. So where would your global quietness be?

Human beings are capable of a lot of things. Most of all they are capable of molding their environments to suit their comfort and develoment. With this in mind, those who mold for others would have a bit more in life.

Nobody really wants a freebie. To gain respect, one must have decent work with decent pay. If I do more than expected, then maybe an incentive is in order. We need to keep the human spirit challenged through incentives to further our development. We'd most likely go into extinction if we do the opposite, as you posited.

Answer 3

You are merely rehashingNarxist communism, which history has chosen for extinction because it simply does not work.

Attempts to "equalize" money between the "haves" and "have nots" fail for many reasons. If you spread all the money evenly between every person alive, in a matter of a few years, you'd have a situation just like we have now.

People who make poor choices with their money will have less, and the people who make good choices will have more.

Answer 4

Sounds like socialism to me.

socialism is the general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Answer 5

I think you have to much time on your hands to be thinking up stuff like this.