I don’t mean doctor-making-150k-a-year rich, I mean properly rich with millions to billions of dollars.

I think many will say yes, they can be, though it may be rare. I was tempted to. I thought more about it and I wondered, are you really a good person if you’re hoarding enough money you and your family couldn’t spend in 10 lifetimes?

I thought, if you’re a good person, you wouldn’t be rich. And if you’re properly rich you’re probably not a good person.

I don’t know if it’s fair or naive to say, but that’s what I thought. Whether it’s what I believe requires more thought.

There are a handful of ex-millionaires who are no longer millionaires because they cared for others in a way they couldn’t care for themselves. Only a handful of course, I would say they are good people.

And in order to stay rich, you have to play your role and participate in a society that oppresses the poor which in turn maintains your wealth. Are you really still capable of being a good person?

Very curious about people’s thoughts on this.

  • UziBobuzi@kbin.social
    200·
    2 years ago

    People who hoard more money than they can spend in several lifetimes while people are literally dying in the streets cannot be good. These things are mutually exclusive.

    • GunnarRunnar@kbin.social
      16·
      2 years ago

      For me personally it’s more a question of does your money hoarding system exploit people or is it family money that’s been made unethically. I think keeping that kind of money to yourself is unethical. And I don’t mean you should go living from riches to rags but recognize that you own something to society and do something about it.

    • IninewCrow@kbin.social
      5·
      2 years ago

      Another way to describe individuals who hoard enormous amounts of wealth to the detriment of society and other humans is … pathologically unsound and incapable of compassion or empathy for others around them

    • BeHereNow@kbin.social
      2·
      2 years ago

      Soros attempted to gain wealth to use it as a tool to fight for the oppressed. Didn’t work out too well for him.

      • sadreality@kbin.social
        15·
        2 years ago

        Can you at least try to explain this take… I think we are having hard time seeing where you are coming from?

        How is some rich clown trying to influence political process for his own benefiting helping the homeless or the working poors?

        What about middle class?

      • BeHereNow@kbin.social
        3·
        1 year ago

        If you’re down voting please explain yourself. I’m guessing it’s not because you are pro fascism/authoritarianism.

        I don’t know much about Soros, but I find how effectively the powers that be (and wanna be) were able to turn him into a boogeyman fascinating.

        • SomeLemmyUser
          1·
          1 year ago

          Without knowing the intent of people down voting, I think you miss what they mean.

          What most people criticise about Soros, gates or any other millionaire for that matter:

          -holds on to more money than he can ever spend while people starve on the streets. -only fights for small improvements instead of targeting the root cause (capitalism) -acts like he’s working mainlyforr charity while working mainly to get/stay rich. (Funds are a nice way to not pay taxes. Even if only 5% of your funds spending is for charity and the rest is for your own profit, you don’t pay taxes at all.)

          What right wing idiots criticise: -wants to take over the world -wants to make everyone gay -wants to chip everyone with vaccines -gets adenochrom from children to stay young.

          There are valid reasons to dislike millionaires. Just because some right wing idiots dislike them too (for wildly different reasons) doesn’t make your reasons invalid.

          If trump would demand free healthcare for all tomorrow, I would still want it, even when i have the same opinion as some right wing idiot.