[yetanothermonk]

One way I could hear people interpreting your comment--I agree on the framing point by the way, there's also external framing now with a hate-billionaires view--is that the steps to get to the thesis make sense but the thesis is not palatable. I'm not sure you'd agree with that interpretation of your comment; I'd love to hear what the problem is with that interpretation

[SpicyLemonZest]

I actually do agree with that interpretation. My beliefs ultimately imply that there's nothing wrong with being a billionaire, but that's not a conclusion I find palatable so it's not something I'm particularly interested in defending on its own merits.

I'd say it's like writing an argument to decrease penalties for shoplifting and titling it "Don't Punish Thieves". It's not wrong, but it's certainly not a productive way to frame the discussion.

[yetanothermonk]

That's interesting and I think I can understand being in that same frame of mind. I wonder, if the implication doesn't match up with what you want the implication to be, how do you break that stalemate?

Here, I guess I'm of the belief that there's nothing wrong with billionaires; the wrong thing is how little there is for a billion people in the world.

[SpicyLemonZest]

It's just a matter of focusing on the motivating principles. I've had lots of good, productive discussions about why "you can get very rich if you make something lots of people want" is a win-win deal for society, or why a system where only the government can finance large projects wouldn't be good. If someone wants to talk about billionaires, I just say that the precise dollar amounts aren't the point.