• the_inebriati@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Firstly, if that is your biggest concern, then we agree far more than we disagree and we’re quibbling over details (which I’m happy to do).

    Secondly, who said they do?

    It of course depends on what you mean exactly by a"slice of the pie" but there’s lots of ownership models to choose from. Direct ownership is one. An employee owned trust is another. These are to a large extent solved problems - mutuals and co-operatives walk among us now, after all.

    Thirdly, you mention the risk of setting up a company. If you’re not rich, why do you have to gamble your dignity and livelihood to participate in innovation? Would the world not be a better place if you could invent and create and innovate and fall back on a basic income if it falls on its face?

    Finally, even if we accidentally make things a bit too equal by giving Jim the new starter the same voting rights as Bob the grizzled veteran - is that not better than the system we have at the moment where incomprehensible hoarded wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few?

      • the_inebriati@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It acts as a filter so that people are only expending time and resources on ideas that will likely take hold and provide value to society.

        Do you actually believe that this filter is working as intended? Or do you think it ought to work like that?

        In a spherical society with no air resistance I can agree with you but it feels like it would be condescending for me to point out how this system that supposedly maximises value to society is in all likelihood going to kill your children’s children.