Zoe @ekg@librem.one

@dlakelan I fully understand that.

The reason I gave up on arguing against the accumulation of wealth is because I came to understand that is a losing battle, and my energy is spent better elsewhere.

That's why I wrote they generally speaking have popular support. I am not going to argue against something that doesn't directly do harm.

That a person sit on meme coins that according to thin markets is worth a billion dollars, is completely worthless to argue against.

@dlakelan billionaires don't always have their wealth in something that can be given away, it's actually extremely rare for people to have their wealth mostly in commodities.

Most Monarchs are popular, that is they have the support of the people. They couldn't surrender their role even if they wanted to.

The Swedish royal family was installed by one of the French republics. He spoke only French and he is most well known for a tattoo, and refusing to pay war debts, to France.

@dlakelan given that people don't have similar goals and desire, why are you against billionaires or Monarchs?

The way I see it is that we have all different lot in life by accident of birth. No one should be punished or belittle because of whom they are, or what life they where born into.

If someone is born into a dynasty, as far as I am concerned it's our job to not punish them for that. The same way we shouldn't punish someone for being poor.

@dlakelan fairness have nothing to do with equal.

What is fair is the universal application of human rights.

What's fair is that everyone has access to the necessities of a decent life with dignity.

That access in no way needs to be equal, or even easy.

I have nothing against billionaires, or Monarchs.

What I am against is children starving, or people being forcefully removed from their home.

@dlakelan what you are describing is called rule of law.

It's a slow deliberate process that is constantly undermine by people that either don't understand it, or is exploited by those that would benefit from its failure.

@dlakelan no, it's not fair to the person sleeping under a bridge.

With every law a constitutional test should be applied to see if it is in agreement with the constitution, where basic rights to dignity is established.

Many of our rights tie back to the Magna Carta, many others come from common law.

@dlakelan you can call anything a law, it doesn't make it so.

I don't know the background of the quote, but I suspect they criticised a specific application of law as unfair. Which would make it a bad law.

@dlakelan no, it's not.

For it to be law it has to be evenly applied to all.

Their exist a lot of fundamentals of law that a lot of people get wrong.

Their is no law if it doesn't apply fairly to all people, regardless of their identity, or background.

Anything else is just thinly wield justifications for evil.

@dlakelan rights, privileges, and infrastructure always begin with the elite, that is what make them the elite.

In a sense being anti-elite is being against extending certain privileges to a consistent small group of people over time.

@dlakelan most ideas, including good ones come from terrible places.

I have advocated for some kind of random draw for representatives for as long as I can remember.

We don't want legislators that ate good at wining elections, we want a fair representation of the populous.