[AlexandrB]

> we could take care of everyone with disabilities 10x over with plenty to spare.

Yes, like the 40%[1] of Stanford undergrads who have disabilities. The greatest long term impediment to what you're suggesting is folks who don't need the help taking advantage of the resource distribution. It both massively increases the costs and sours those who have to pay into the system on the whole thing leading to a backlash.

If we could just solve this quirk of human nature, we'd be all set.

[1] https://fortune.com/article/rise-in-elite-students-seeking-a...

[watwut]

Yeah, disability accommodation like having single dorm room and being allowed to cook for themselves rather then using cantine. Maybe the question is why the cantine is obligatory anyway.

[NuclearPM]

This is an issue, but billionaires are a greater issue.

[mrkstu]

You could take away 100% of billionaires capital to redistribute and end up in the exact same place in 4 years.

[jjav]

You would not end up in the same place because then you'd be in a world without billionaires, so you would not have people who can too easily just buy every politician and law they wish for their own perpetuation.

That alone would be a massive win.

[cucumber3732842]

It's not the ~50 billionares I'm worried about. They are human. You can appeal to Bill Gate's desire to leave a legacy he's proud of. You can appeal to Elon Musk's desire for technological progress.

What worries me are the god knows how many "billionaire equivelent" entities and institutions that swing their dicks around in the same manner but do so with the sociopathic ruthlessness of corporations and governments.

Peter Thiel may be evil but he'll almost certainly never knowingly instigate genocidal war in a foreign land for marginal benefit to his interests whereas that's exactly the kind of thing that nonhuman entities do because no person is singularly responsible.