However, killing them is the accountability and we’ll keep doing so untill they accept jail instead. It is the punishment for what they have done. I’m willing to settle for jail. But I don’t know about the rest of the world. Because remember they are killing us because it hurt thier bottom line and we’re undesirable.

I think you’re missing the point here. The difference between tyranny and justice is the means of delivering accountability. I’m in favor of the rich and powerful facing justice, however, it has to be done in an extremely principled way. We have to give to hold them accountable for breaking laws that apply to everyone else, and those laws have to be based on universally applicable principles. Not only that, but they need to be given fair trials and appropriate punishments.

In simpler words, you can’t punish billionaires on misguided emotions, justice has to be just at every level. For example, you can’t just grab a random billionaire and execute them for being a billionaire. Why? Because we would be condemning a person for what is essentially a lawful act. If we were to do that then the law would lose meaning and we would create a slippery slope to tyranny. Therefore, you have to punish the specific billionaires for specific acts that violated the law. Just like anybody else they have to go through trial, they’ll have the right to a defense, and the court shall judge them appropriately based on the evidence provided by the prosecution. If they are deemed guilty then they have to punished within the confines of the law.

Again, it sounds boring and unsexy compared to movie styled executions, but these technicalities matter a lot as they are the very foundations of society. If they are not taken seriously, then you’ll be creating a fragile society that’s prone to collapse because it stands on nothing.

But I will fight you on the hierarchy bs. It may be “nature” but, we do things that go against nature all the time to benifit others. Vaccination, antibiotics, gmos, and other similar items. Going down that nature argument is a slippery slope that leads directly into thinking that others are lesser, the lie that you and the right belive.

You have fundamental misunderstanding of what hierarchies are. They are NOT optional. They are our innate biological mechanism that allows us to socialize in large groups. In order to have a functional society, you need to have large groups of people to specialize in different thing and coordinate to deliver common goals. Hierarchies do this by breaking up complex tasks into smaller chunks via labor division, streamlining abstract processes like coordination efforts and decision making, and by providing a clear social structure like a chain of command. Societal organization like this require leadership on multiple levels. Leadership positions by definition are a supreme as they have special privileges that grant them more power than the positions below them.

However, this type of supremacy has nothing to do with the supremacy that you’re talking about. Position based supremacy is completely different from the idea of inherent supremacy. For example, take a country like France. The president has the most supreme governmental power of any individual in the country. That person stands at the top of the political hierarchy. However, they are not superior or inferior to anybody else. They’re just a normal citizen that’s equal to all others who was voted in by society to serve as a leader by holding this position for a period of time. An individual being the president of France does not make them superior or inferior to other French people. The idea of inherent supremacy, aka, where people think they’re born superior to others, is the problem, but that’s a very specific type of supremacy that is demonstrably false.

Ideologies like anarchy have a completely misinformed understanding of what hierarchies are, and thus they treat all hierarchies as evil because they think they’re the source of inherent supremacy because they have positional supremacy based on vertical social organization. That’s just a flawed understanding of many different topics.

“What death toll is good enough to satisfy you?” the number of deaths to that provides a deteriant to prevent any one from having that much power again. And that number, will be surprisingly low. Mark my words. Especially if we kill them in ways that they beg for death and make them stay alive through every ounce of pain they have caused.

That’s just… unhinged. History has shown that cruelty is one of the weakest long term deterrents because resentment and desperation are much stronger drivers in humans than fear. Cruelty is tyranny, and tyranny never stops where it was originally intended. The goalposts will always move and there will always be new targets, pushing the populace in to a corner where they will eventually lash out and destroy it.

If you think that the violence would stop at the billionaires then you’re greatly mistaken. It will quickly expand to include critics of these policies, multimillionaires, people who propped up billionaires (lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc), and so on eventually expanding all the way out to the common people where a new reign of terror will take place.

Again, what you’re saying here has already happened in recent history, more than once to. I’ll once again, bring up Mao as an example. He killed every capitalist, every businessman, every lawyer, every intellectual, every critic, he killed so many people that his reign of terror has become the standard example of democide… and has it worked? Nope, the cruelty he employed was supposed to be a strong deterrent, but China literally readopting capitalism shortly after he died because his economic policies almost brought the country to collapse again.

You will be useful in the end, you will be one of the few that will be a guardian of the innocent.

Is it not concerning for you that you don’t view yourself as such?

You are right that more rich people will replace them, but, if those rich that replace are not evil and do things that truly benifit humanity and are looser with thier wallets and willing to be accountable, then maybe, just maybe we can have a better world. Untill then, death to evil rich and thier loyal servants.

The issue here is that evil is an inherently subjective term. It’s not something that can be quantified or measured. In other words, your entire view here is not based on something that’s grounded in reality. The idea of inherent evil has the same exact problems as the idea of inherent supremacy. They both make the assumption that there are people that fundamentally different from others, which is not true. We’re all the same regardless of wealth, status, or race. If all people are the same then that means your conclusion has to be false, and something else is at play… which is in fact the case. The issues with our current society is entirely systematic, not individualistic. Things are what they are because of flaws in the systems we use to structure our society. That’s something that has to be fixed by legislation based on data and reasoning, not violence.

And using history as a lense, the system changes came about only after a large number of deaths.

This is not true. History is full of peaceful power transitions, system reforms, and revolutions.

Im proposing to limit death to those who are rich, racist, and currently hold the reigns of power for evil. Simple as that.

But this is literally the mentality of the most evil people in history. Like I said before, all the most evil people have the mentality that the world would be a better place if they just killed the people they didn’t like. They all thought that they’ll restrain themselves to only what’s necessary and that history would look kindly on them once they see the results. However, that’s never the case, for a reason.