[ahf8Aithaex7Nai]

> act against someone like him

What do you mean? I have the day off today. I'm sitting here in my underwear listening to my washing machine in the background. The sun is shining outside. I went for a walk in the park next door earlier. In an hour (Germany time), I'll cook something for lunch and then go to the garage to put a new rear tire on my motorcycle. Tomorrow, sauna; Sunday, bike ride; and on Monday, back to the office. What I'm trying to say is: I'm not the protagonist whose decision determines whether Musk f*ks up the world or not. And that's not a question of my priorities, but of a realistic assessment of the real scope for action.

If you want to have a real chance of putting someone like Musk in his place, you need to join the largest possible political collective with the right agenda. But looking at the course of the conversation, my respectful recommendation (assuming you're not trolling) would be to focus on your own well-being first.

[ben_w]

I mean your own words up-thread:

> I want to live. And if you threaten my life, I will defend myself with whatever means I have at my disposal. It makes no difference whether you threaten me by taking away my livelihood or by withholding it from me. You therefore have a choice. Either you value my life as you value your own, or there will be war between us. And that is a war you will not win, because you are not only waging it against me, but against all people whose right to life you wish to deny.

Like, OK, is that just you blowing off steam or do you have a specific threshold where you'll do anything?

[ahf8Aithaex7Nai]

Okay, I understand. The person who wrote the parent post seems to believe that people do not fundamentally have a right to survive, but must assert and maintain this claim transactionally in a market context. I think that every person has an intrinsic and incommensurable right to survive, and that this right also includes the right to defend oneself when the right to life is questioned or even endangered by others, not only through actions but also through omissions. For example: I must help you in an emergency, and you must help me in an emergency. I must not let you starve, and you must not let me starve. In a good society, these things are regulated institutionally. In this way, individuals are not burdened with the corresponding moral dilemma. The question of who pays for me to live and why they should do so points in the opposite direction: it suggests that this question needs to be clarified and that I (or any other person) should simply die if I cannot afford to live. I wanted to express that there is an ideological conflict here that could well take on the character of a war, and that my side does not consist of peace-loving hippies, but of people who are prepared to defend themselves very effectively against such a misanthropic ideology.

> do you have a specific threshold where you'll do anything?

This conflict is not fought only once a certain threshold has been reached, but from the outset and continuously, in political struggles, in the struggle for social values and prevailing ethics, etc. Only when there is really no other option is it fought with fists and weapons. If you ask me specifically when the masses will storm the palaces of people like Musk with pitchforks, I can't answer that. For myself, I can say that I still see a lot of scope for political action within the legal frameworks that have been established (at least here in Europe). After World War II, there was a comprehensive redistribution policy throughout the Western world (especially in the US) that we could certainly repeat: top tax rates above 90%, enormous power for trade unions, a rapidly growing middle class, and historically low income concentration. The constraints are different today than they were then, but the only thing that is really necessary is the willingness to put things that are currently upside down back on their feet.