@bonifartius @jeffowski That's a great question!
Every person is different, and since only you know what your special skills are, that means I can't tell you.
Keep learning and thinking and growing, and sure an answer will come to you I'm eventually.

@ambulocetus @jeffowski
i ask because the original post speaks about "violently traumatizing".

the problem with "anti-billionaire" is that removing billionaires by whatever means doesn't magically makes everyone else more rich or happier. it just removes billionaires, either by stripping them of their wealth (most of which is virtual anyway!) or their life.

most often the "anti"-action is radically different from improving things.

@bonifartius @jeffowski
Ok, I understand where you're coming from, but I have a couple of questions about where you said "removing billionaires by whatever means doesn't magically makes everyone else more rich or happier".
You seem very confident about that. On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident are you about that?

@ambulocetus @jeffowski solid ten.

_why would removing billionaires make people happier_?

_why not focus on make everyone else happier?_

instead of making billionaires less happy/rob them/murder them - because that is exactly what people often call for, thinly veiled.

@bonifartius @jeffowski Ten is very confident. I wish I was that confident. Can you tell me how you arrived at that level of confidence?

@ambulocetus @jeffowski because the "remove billionaires" options are destructive and those very rarely work in the long run.

people could just stop buying stuff from billionaires for a start, but they don't want to.

i think the lifestyle of virtually all the proponents of "violently traumatizing" billionaires is filled with stuff made by very wealthy people. the whole stack from netflix to spotify to apple to tinder to food delivery to steam to clothing to ... is made by precisely the people they hate.

just start buying locally produced things where possible, used technology, ...

those are constructive actions which not add more money to billionaires and keep wealth locally distributed. it might not be the most convenient or cheap option and might not even be possible all of the time. at least it's better than calls for violence against people who for whatever reason are better off by others larping as morally superior.

@ambulocetus @jeffowski so, guess you can say the ten is not confident, it is principled.

@bonifartius @jeffowski But my original question was about confidence, not principles. Are your principles what give you confidence?

@ambulocetus @jeffowski i have confidence in my principles.

it's like "being dead" or "being pregnant", either it's universal nonviolence or it's not. one can't just draw a magic line somewhere and say "those are the baddies because they have X amount of money so it's ok to use violence".

@bonifartius @jeffowski What are your principles based on? I'm talking in general, not neccessarily about this specific subject. Do you base your principles on evidence or faith or something else?