[hiddencost]

I mean Musk is carrying out a coup, and Cuban is trying to invest in some programmers. I think there's some day light here.

[trial3]

but the core problem to me feels like “billionaires in charge of what should be government functions.” this is still that bad for that reason even if Cuban is funnier on Bluesky

[hiddencost]

The core problem to me is that we're going through a successful coup.

I'm here for it if we're proposing redistributing the wealth of everyone with 9 figures or more.

[michelb]

Sure, but that isn't going to change in the USA unless the political system changes, so it will be more of a democratic system like in many western countries where billionaires have little to no influence. I see that as unlikely to ever happen there. Funding for candidates has been crazy in the past few decades.

[elif]

that's not true. the core problem is "billionaires destroying government functions"

in that light, cuban is doing the literal opposite by trying to save one.

[brookst]

This is the category / degree fallacy. We don’t get to choose a world where billionaires have no special power. The choice is whether to accept some good from billionaires, or to reject what good they can do because of the harm they do.

[fwip]

We sure can choose that world. Not individually, but as a people.

[trial3]

> This is the category / degree fallacy.

I have been reading about what this is (I have not encountered it before) and earnestly fail to see how.

> We don’t get to choose a world where billionaires have no special power. The choice is whether to accept some good from billionaires, or to reject what good they can do because of the harm they do.

If we're discussing fallacies, I'm getting tasting notes of False Dilemma. We, participants in society, can shape, define, and reject what "special powers" means. Not totally, and I imagine the royal we of HN commenters might disagree on how much or in what ways, but I believe it is possible.