[edoo]

In a just society the only way you can get rich is through voluntary interaction by adding value to world. In our society you can get rich through legislation, which has created the wealthy parasitic class that earns a living by preventing competition.

To target all the rich is to loot and destroy your society. To target the wealthy parasitic class would be a revolution frankly.

[leggomylibro]

I don't know if calling it a 'revolution' is the best idea - it seems like they always end up devouring their children. Marxist 'eat the rich' types of revolutions are pretty recent, too - traditionally it seems like a frustrated upper middle class is what aristocrats and overreaching executives really have to fear. Also, I never miss a chance to trot out this quote:

"Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions. People die, and nothing changes."

- Terry Pratchett, Night Watch

[edoo]

As far as I understand it there has been a few legislative pincher moves since inception. The 17th amendment might qualify as one. It allowed for a populist instead of representative vote of our senators and basically created the modern situation of whomever spends the most campaign money wins. AKA special interest/lobby groups now rule.

That is one of of the few small changes of course the country made that if reversed would probably be to the benefit of most. To revoke the 17th would be senators literally voting themselves out of work, hence it would never happen. A soviet style collapse is a revolution too, just forced and likely crummy.

[krupan]

Since most governments are also billionaires, maybe we could abolish them too.

[edoo]

I think the original success of the US was due to the paradoxical government we created. The entire purpose of the government was to protect people from the government.

[Gustomaximus]

Ummm, country ≠ person...

Also are billionaires going to allow people to vote who owns their wealth and allocates their spending every 4 years?

[MrTonyD]

You know, there are a lot of problems with your logic. I'm a product of a Jesuit University where I was forced to write paper after paper on topics around morality, good, evil, justice, and similar themes. Justice has a lot of different potential definitions - many (most) of which wouldn't define "adding value" as a "just" way to get rich. A different definition of "just" might more likely define a massive distribution of wealth to some individuals as morally unjust based on outcomes. With such a logic targeting the rich would be morally justified - even if illegal and involving killing or death.

The Jesuits are a very serious bunch of guys - many have died for their beliefs. And just because they are Catholic doesn't mean that they agree with Catholic policy - though they recognize that it has the weight of established policy (as Pope Francis has said more than once as he defended things I know he disagrees with.)

[edoo]

I define a 'just' society as one in which initiating violence is forbidden and you must only use reason to persuade people to action.

It is in line with the commandments "Thou shalt not murder/steal", which would be in effect even (especially?) if you think you are making the world a better place through wealth distribution.

[candiodari]

You mean a society without a government at all ?