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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.