Re:Judge: California’s women on boards law is unconstitutional
by robertlagrant on Tuesday May 17, 2022 @07:36AM
(#31408951)
It's not radically better. Giving people who at the age of 50 have enough money to live on no way of passing anything on will disincentivise a giant number of things you take for granted.
Re:Judge: California’s women on boards law is unconstitutional
by kennywinker on Tuesday May 17, 2022 @03:28PM
(#31415298)
Like what? I'm interested in disincentivizing the accumulation of more wealth than you can spend in a lifetime, and the continued sequestering of that wealth into family lines. We abolished the monarchy for a reason - we don't want to be ruled by people who were born into their position.
Re:Judge: California’s women on boards law is unconstitutional
by robertlagrant on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @06:26AM
(#31421060)
There is a big difference between wealth and monarchy. You aren't ruled by people with money, although one of them might offer you a job.
Re:Judge: California’s women on boards law is unconstitutional
by kennywinker on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @11:56AM
(#31424317)
They literally shape the world around us. Money = speech, so they speak louder than us. It may not be quite so restrictive as a lord-surf relationship, but “giving you a job” is a power dynamic that edges towards feudal when the choice is homelessness and starvation or work.
Why does your kid need a financial advantage? If society provided an equal footing for every child, the advantages you could provide to them would be love, advice inspiration, and bettering society so that there was more for them.
You say “that’ll never fly”, but I say if we’re going to imagine a better world why not imagine it radically better not just incrementally better.