For instance I know some lawyers and insurance CEOs who built the company themselves and run an ethical business model but because of innovation have made a ton of money. One lawyer has made a name for himself only defending those who have been hurt my big corporations and their life is ruined. The other made an insurance model that helps these hurt people invest their court winnings into annuities to guarantee they’re financially taken care of for life. These are not billionaires but both companies have won for their clients/work with hundreds of millions if not billions.

How can one clearly define someone like Musk or Bezos as bourgeois whereas these hard working individuals who came from nothing and build a huge business actually from nothing and help people?

Hoping for a non-black and white answer. My local MLM group declares everyone evil who isn’t their exact ideology. It doesn’t make sense to apply this thinking when someone whose become rich through helping people isn’t the same as someone whose has taken advantage of people for generations.

Edit: getting downvoted to hell when I am asking a question sure isn’t welcoming.

  • Tehdastehdas@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    6 days ago

    Not so useful to separate them, better not enable the evil ones in the first place.

    Laws should reward only the ethical value making, not the money hoarding:

    • ~100% inheritance tax. No unearned rich anymore. Funds universal basic income.
    • Intellectual property (patent, copyright) owners can’t forbid others from producing, and state decides the cut the owner gets according to simple formula. Patent trolling and sitting on inventions made impossible.
    • Ban artificial scarcity: All trade secrets must be published as patents. Every computer must have everything digital ever made. State decides the producer’s reward based on consumption times value produced while consumed. When addiction produces negative value, harm tax funds harm reduction and the producer is fined.
    • ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPEnglish
      1·
      6 days ago

      2-3 make sense but why would someone not be allowed to set their children up for success? By 100% you mean it’s all taken?

      • Tehdastehdas@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        6 days ago

        You are allowed help your children in every way, except your death tax money belongs to the generous welfare state. No unearned income except UBI. The state must invest in all risky ventures that were funded by accumulated private money before the 100% inheritance tax. This way more money is allocated to projects valuable to society, less to personal projects in families that happen to be rich.