These people obviously have unquestionable control over everything by wealth and influence. People underneath them suffer under their ‘leadership’ whether it is working unhealthy hours for shit pay to working in unsafe environments where they’re subjected to abuse or harm.
Yet there are pockets of people, where if you express the desire of these kinds of people who lead to die, will defend them because reasons. The top reason being that they don’t like the idea of life being taken away. However, the way I see it is that, if you are in high positions and anybody suffers by a big number because you’re a poor leader or so. I think the idea of jail or any justice imposed sentence is beyond them.
Lots of people forget because it’s been 5 years, but Trump allowed 350,000 americans to die under a mishandled pandemic. Was the pandemic going to take lots of lives anyways? Yes, but I argue that it could’ve been negated and handled better. But no, that’s not what we saw happen.
And it is because of that kind of gross example, I wish death on Trump everyday, anyday.
And people argue “oh, he should be in jail to think about his crimes and the law will prevail” blah blah. People have been clamoring for jail time for lots of powerful people, only to find that very few of them do. To them, time is like money, they’re too busy counting how many days they have left before they’re back out and will attempt to re-capture their influence and wealth to resume what they did before again.
So I feel that by sentencing these people to death, we are taking away immediately, what enjoyment they have, in spending making hundreds to thousands to even millions of people suffer and having their lives be worse off.
I’m not sure this is categorically true. If you are in a situation where another person is clearly and obviously killing everyone around you one after the other and you could stop them by killing them, I think most would argue it is morally ok to do so. Same for a situation of like a home invasion where someone means to do immediate harm to your family and loved ones. Murder in self defense is often considered morally ok. When people in the world through their actions are killing people in enormous numbers, it is not too hard to see how someone could make a parallel to self defense.
Sure, but that’s a bit of a motte-and-bailey. It’s like saying that one wishes death for all black people and when challenged they then retreat back to claiming that they were talking about just the ones who rape and murder.
My point is that wishing death for someone simply for being rich and in an executive position is barely different from wishing that to someone because they’re black. It’s unreasonable to be categorically against something purely based on superficial features. It’s a thought-terminating cliché that ignores all nuance and reduces a diverse group of people into a stereotype.
I basically agree with this, with one important distinction worth mentioning that being black is not a willful choice, but having billions of dollars absolutely is. I would argue that if someone has so much money there is no possible way for them to spend it all in their and their progeny’s lifetime, the only ethical thing to do is give the excess that can’t be spent away.
In general, though, I understand not all ultra wealthy are equally bad, and those who just inherited their money and sit on it aren’t anywhere near the level of those that actively influence policy for the negative. Yes there is nuance there, and yes stereotyping the whole group is reductive.
The general sentiment in OPs comment is usually rooted to in the notion that there is really no way to run a business that makes billions of dollars without underpaying or overcharging people along the way, and there is no way to justify having 100bn+ dollars all for yourself when there are so many people without. If that means those offences are extreme enough to justify murder is another question, and I agree should probably not apply categorically to all rich people equally with no deeper discussion.