196

EDIT: I think I misstated myself. I'm going to be crossing some stuff out.

But they did though. Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis, Alexander H Stephens, plus countless slaveowners all just... surrendered, and went back to owning the exact same plantations their slaveowning had provided the startup capital for.

Was it right? Hell no! Their plantations should have been given to their slaves. We would live in a better country if they had.

But it's worth repeating that people who blew out their chest and blustered about how it was better to die than to lose this fight just went right back to comfortable lives after a heinous, sadistic, brutal form of capital exploitation was abolished right out from under them.

If you can abolish slavery without killing Dolly Sumner Lint or Jefferson Davis, then it stands to reason that even after sending Pinkertons, cops, and bootlickers to die by the thousands, [EDIT: at least some of] these billionaires will surrender at the first sign of blood on their doorstep.

~~Meaning you can abolish capital without killing Jamie Johnson OR Jeff Bezos.~~

[EDIT: Meaning, in the course of abolishing capital, you will not necessarily need to kill every, single Jamie Johnson and every, single Jeff Bezos.]

Which in turn means the killing of those particular people -- [EDIT: those who surrender] -- ends up peripheral at best.

~~They~~ [EDIT: At least some of them] will not throw their bodies in front of the bullets aimed at their orphan killing machines.

As much closure as they would bring, as good as that would feel. [EDIT: Not all of them will make it that easy.] ~~It's just not going to happen.~~

And then, at that point -- when they have surrendered -- it's like torturing a serial killer. We gain nothing. It doesn't bring anyone back to life. It doesn't put the aerosolized carbon back underground or bring the temperature back to livable levels. It doesn't give back all of the years robbed from people by stressed and missed medical treatments. All it does is introduce a little bit more pain to the world.

Again: at best.

At worst it could potentially set a precedent that anyone perceived as "aligned" with billionaires deserves the same death inflicted on those billionaires.

In other words, at worst, it could turn the person holding the guillotine into the de facto capitalist controlling all of the factories, all of the land, and all of the equipment single-handedly. Because who is going to stop them? Anyone who challenges that person can be easily labeled a "reactionary capitalist counter-revolutionary" and punished according to that label.

Empathy doesn't mean you can't be angry. I feel sorry that they have so much money it's corrupted their view and made them heartless gods amongst men. Feeling sad for someone doesn't mean you can't be mad and it doesn't mean you can't want them to see justice.

It amazes me that people don't make the connection that billionaires are both directly and indirectly killing massive amounts of people. They force people to live paycheck to paycheck, skip meals, skip basic medical needs, work multiple jobs till they die, feel in a hopeless cycle until the depression is too overwhelming.

They deserve to die.

Exactly. These people are downright evil. They at least accept that their actions kill thousands of people. Why would I has sympathy with a psychopathic murderer?

A rare few do. They're off limits.

Self defence isn't murder

You're taking the argument at it's most basic level, assuming that we would kill the billionaires and then sit around twiddling our thumbs. I don't think it's much of a leap to assume we'd change how the system works as well lol.