I was saying as much to a mutual recently, on account of her (very astute) observations about AI datacentres, and about how the Elite Class act and operate.
Part of the central point of her argument was that we and the world are at the mercy of a cabal of uber-powerful, uber-rich, unelected, and unaccountable tycoons -- which, of course, can hardly be denied; it's pretty much a non-partisan statement nowadays.
Well...that sounded awfully familiar to me.
Sounds not too far from "eat the rich", right? Maybe leftists have a point, after all!
But then I pondered: what common ground is there, really? Let us think -- what reasons does the Left usually cite for "eating the rich"?
Is it "Because this cabal of unaccountable men are are the real culprits of environmental destruction, and not your average Joe who wants to eat beef and do the occasional overseas trip"?
Is it "Because these people are foisting upon all of us, at the expense of nature, tradition, and true spiritual wellbeing, a bunch of technologies and lifestyles (think postmodernity, beigification, etc.) which we never asked for"?
Is it, as I tend to say, "Because they confiscated our past, and stole our future"?
I am willing to be contradicted, but in my experience, almost none of the aforementioned reasons ever make it into their rhetoric.
Their core, if not sole, rationale (for as many as do not go all-out in claiming that all private property must be abolished) is almost always some variation of "Having above a certain arbitrary amount of private property automatically means that you're an exploitative and immoral a***hole". Which is not only unfalsifiable, but also completely at odds with the reasons which any sane person has for wanting to "eat the rich", but also, most importantly, never addresses the core problems.
And as it goes without saying -- to borrow from the parlance of medicine: "If the diagnosis is bollocks, then the prescription can kill".
jacobvanloon
janainaart
titsay
izzy806
origamiaround
