seriously.... there aren't that many of them

A little billionaire cocktail math for you. Each billionaire emits in the neighbourhood of 1 million times more CO2 than the average person. So you streetcar just 3000 or so billionaires and that's the equivalent of reducing the earth's population by about 3 billion. Can't really think of anything greener

106

Not that I don’t believe you but I’d love to cite this in future discussions, where did you get your stats from?

41
- I think I got it from here (Oxfam)
  
  44
Thats their investments, not their personal use. According to your source anyway.

7
I’m pulling the lever as hard as I can, I swear!

3
The emissions from their investments ... thats the same as the emissions of your place of work or the emissions of the company you buy your stuff from. Lets blame that on an extremely small group of people instead of the billions of people who consume the products enabling them.

-7
- Yep there might be plenty we disagree with regarding their investments and their affect on the environment but we are just lying to ourselves to say people arent making a living due to some of those investments, having our lives enriched, and generally benefitting us in ways we would demand to keep if they were all magically erased.
  
  Kind of useless to talk about this in any way to come to a sentimental conclusion though because we arent looking at a distribution of data to inform us what generates the most environmental impact and how much value we actually get from it each investment. Its just a big ambigious number until we look into it. Which we wont. Because nobody here actually cares enough.
  
  -5

49

Put a sniper on top of the cart in case the switchman gets bought out. Ain’t taking no chances.

37

And when the sniper gets paid off?

11
- Now there's 2702 billionaires to take out...
  
  17

I’ve seen this meme a while ago and I saw someone saying he wants to run over the billionaires back and forth to make sure they’re dead and I deeply agree with that.

26

2700? That's more than I thought.

16

Trolley problems usually have some conflict that makes the decision hard.

15

Exactly. There's no moral dillema here. I'm keeping the switch in the "left" position and welding it in place, just in case.

5

I see no problem in this trolley problem.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

15

that's a scarily large amount of billionaires

15

Another consequence of inflation, I suppose.

3

The billionaires are deliberately playing on the broken rail

13

That's 2700 more than what I would like

13

I wonder what would happen. Let's say 10,000 people.

Let's say some extremist, highly organized group manages to successfully assassinate the 10,000 richest people in the world, and then disappears without a trace.

I'm guessing those people would all be succeeded by their next of kin. Would that cause a wave of change or...?

13

You're correct. It would cause some disruption and a lot of joy, but system would continue. It need to be overthrown entirely and new one built. That is, proletarian revolution is needed.

15
- my boy/girl.
  
  6
No, it would not cause change. More would quickly take their place. The problem ultimately isn't the billionaires, but the system that allows them to exist.

14
- the system that allows them to exist.
  
  Which they maintain (and rig further for their benefit) with their exorbitant wealth and power, let's not be coy.
  
  Sure, killing them all isn't enough on its own, but abolishing capitalism will never happen as long as they, and their power, exist, and very few, if any at all will give it up voluntarily (to begin with, anyway), leaving us only one choice. They are what is destroying the planet and oppressing, and killing, millions of people, proactively and by choice, the "magic hand of capitalism" didn't force them in to their positions.
  
  10
- Depends. If it happens once, you're right. Nothing would change. But after the 2nd or 3rd time in a year? I think the people who inherit it will start seeing a little more charitably.
  
  7
- Hence the necessity of Communist theory, otherwise random adventurism takes place.
  
  5
I think a more efficient tactic would be to, once a month, execute the person with the highest net worth. Billionaires would be scrambling to get rid of their money

11
- Be better to just go ahead and achieve a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, any Capitalism that remains can be kept no bigger than can be crushed easily if it gets out of hand.
  
  4
Let’s say some extremist, highly organized group manages to successfully assassinate the 10,000 richest people in the world, and then disappears without a trace.

The problem is that these billionaires profit the most from a system of resource exploitation, but they do not benefit exclusively. We'd still have hundreds of billions of dollars in fossil fuel centric infrastructure that we'd need to replace and reconfigure. And that reconfiguration would require a national organized effort.

Ultimate, you can't just wave a wand and make Rich People Go Away. You need a national project that is both popular and efficient. One that reduces emissions while improving quality of life. You need a Green New Deal.

That's not something you can affect purely from subtraction.

7
I’m guessing those people would all be succeeded by their next of kin. Would that cause a wave of change or…?

Something would happen on the micro level. Some families would fight over the power vacuum, other families would slowly fall into obscurity due to the loss of a loved one, some might spend resources to track down information, some might a come to Jesus moment about the wealth, etc.

Would anything change on the macro level? Doubtful. New people will rise to the top as the system that created unimaginable wealth still exists.

2
You'd have to also threaten to assassinate their inheritors from taking the estate, or just take the estate. Either way that's violence. The question then becomes is it okay to use the Master's tools to build your own house, to which my answer is no I can't. I can use the Master's tools to tear down their own houses. I may be a bit too idealistic though.

1
- Have you read theory? I can point you to some good entry points, but essentially if you can smash the bourgeois state and create a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, you vastly democtatize society.
  
  3
It's not the people, it's the assets you must destroy.

To go after Warren Buffett you need to destroy Apple, Coca-Cola, Kraft, etc.

Are you (and everyone else) willing to do without your comforts?

-1

We'd see some real trickle-down in that case.

11

B...but the shareholders! Won't someone please think of the shareholders. 😢

10

Billionaires brought the tram and dismantled it for car infrastructure

9

Add on the left workers rights, freedom, and real economic prosperity

5

And I'm thinking "hold on, there aren't 2.7 trillion people here"

3

Lest we forget, trolley tracks are electrified sogo ahead and let ol jg gotrox step on one

2

That was the dumbest thing about "Death Note". Dipshit Light wasted his time on writing the names of people that were already being ground up by the criminal justice system. He was so cop-brained that he never could even imagine using this power on the guys who are above any justice whatsoever. If he made a list of the wealthiest labor-thieves and cruelest dictators, would anyone even bother going after him? If he post-dated it to all go off at once, there would be zero pattern for any detective to start from.

2

This is so stupid it makes me worried for the human race that people actually fall for that. Do people honestly think that the problem of emissions goes away by taking out the people owning the companies producing the emissions? Isn't it extremely obvious that the same companies will produce the same emissions regardless of who owns them as long as the demand for their goods, services and laws governing them stays the same?

I mean sure, lets blame the owner of exxon for the emissions caused by cars and powerplants. I'm sure people will enjoy riding to work on a horse amish style if it means limiting global warming to 2 degrees instead of three, how about you pitch that idea to a large group of people an see how that goes.

You know what would actually help? Electing the right people. Not just caring about this on election day when you have the choice between two shades of shit, get the right people primaried. But you know whats the truth? The truth is that it's not the billionaires fault. The truth is the majority of people don't care about saving the planet, not if it inconviniences them and thats why democracy doesn't nip this in the bud. Because it works. It actually represents the people and their will and the people who care are represented by the guys that loose by 30% in the primaries, as in getting 3% instead of 35%.

You take out the billionaires and the industries will be run by the workers, the state or whatever anarcho socialist conglomerate you can think up, but nothing will change. Because 90% of people are too busy with their own little lives to care about 3 degrees global warming and nothing will change that.

-7

You're right people will never ride a horse instead of their car. (Plus it seems horses would be worse for the environment) But the 2k people who own 50% (?) of world wealth have more say on how the resources are used than the 99.99% of other people. And like them those 2k don't want to ride horses. On the contrary they want to use all the resources for their own benefit. So getting ride of them could allow to implement some sustainable practice they are fighting against.

But it is a joke in the end: Having 2k oligarchs run over by a trolley wont save the planet. What need to be run over is the system that allow 2k people control the fate of all the others through greed.

4
- But thats just not true. Well maybe it's true for a country like china or north korea. But the rest of the world? We could elect people changing the system and there is nothing the 2k people could do. Sure they can influence elections to some degree, but if there was a true will for change? The reason the billionaires have so much power and protection is because a lot of people side with them and the system they support.
  
  But again, the oligarchs ain't the problem. Getting rid of them just changes the ownership of the companies producing the pollution, what we need to do is change the companies and the way to do that is legislation. And that legislation is not supported by the majority of people. I mean look at east germany during the cold war if you don't believe me, not a single billionaire yet still horrible pollution. Billionaires don't cause pollution, people do.
  
  0
one of the few upvoters here 😂 this is mostly not wrong. most people don't give a shit, don't be mad just because you don't like the truth. however, I'm still gonna blame billionaires, or by extension anyone with the mindset of trying to become a rich person. all of these rats actively undermine democracy using highly effective lobby campaigns. you can only blame the plebs to some degree. they're stupid but also too stupid to fix it. meanwhile most people with higher education have no sense of compassion and just afford themselves a few more blissful years. we're cooked, guys, time to finish what you wanted to do in life and get ready for the bad days 😂

1