Everybody is suffering. Not only the 3.6 billions.

In your world, it seems like being a billionaire is the ultimate end of suffering. Eventually, everyone dies. Even billionaires.

I think they simply have problems that we can't relate to. I don't know what it's like to be a billionaire.

Should they share that wealth? I don't know. Maybe? Maybe not?

Now, I don't think I'm defending them. But as a business owner, a part of me values wealth creation and capitalism.

I can see the point.

Being a billionaire is most likely morally wrong and probably exploited tons of people to reach that point. I can see why people might think it's unjust.

But if a billionaire trully worked hard for it, than I don't see what's wrong. He can do what he wants with his money.

It might effectively trigger people like you. Maybe that's a reflection of your own inability to create wealth for yourself.

Your argument that every body deserve to eat, clean water, roof, etc., it sounds good on paper.

In some cases, I'm sure it truly helps some people to get back on their feet and create a better life for themselves.

But I don't think that's a long term solution. Why? Because then, people can decide to be usefulness and not work. Why would they? Everything is given to them. It encourages laziness and poverty.

Why would a billionaire who worked hard to reach that point not deserve his money while a homeless person who purposely decided to not work derserve to be given anything?

I might look more into it.

But whatever you're explaining seems way too idealistic. To me at least.

Everything obviously has power dynamics. The worker and the manager, for example.

Capitalists have their own power. Coming from wealth and private ownership.

And socialists also have their own. Coming from equality and collectivity.

But I think expecting everything to be all nice, free, equal and collective is too good to be true. You have to be competent, useful and valuable to society.

I have a friend and neighbor that is 68 and never worked in his entire life. Now, he's quite intelligent but he decided to live on welfare his whole life because he could. I have absolutely zero respect for that. You talk so much about exploitation and abuse. Here's an example of someone who abused and exploited a socialist system with his laziness and uselessness.

Just like making everything private isn't the right solution either.

I see that you emphasize a lot on ownership.

I do agree that some things should be managed publicly like healthcare, education, etc. Because those are necessities that everybody need.

But other than that, I think most common trades should come from private property. That's how businesses and wealth are built. I want this in exchange for that, and money often being involved.

Also, ownership doesn't always mean that you don't work at all, it simply means that you use your resources and what you have adequately. Someone that has a lot of resources can probably manage to not work much, but still has to make important decisions on how to use these resources.

We could obviously go into the small details, and I understand that private property can be abused when it goes too far. But that's why I think we need a healthy balance of socialism and capitalism. Some things should be owned publicly, while other things are owned privately. It's up to the society to create laws and regulations depending on their values.

That being said, one of the reason I like FOSS is that it's outside ownership system. It's public, yet you retain all ownership rights.

I came to Lemmy because I like the free and open source aspect of it from a software perspective.

Now, FOSS and communism do share common ideologies about collaboration, community, accessibility, etc. But they are fundamentally different.

I hope you realize that 'business' and 'making money' usually mean exchange of services. You buy something because you need it. You sell/work something because someone needs it.

Generally speaking, from a capitalist perspective, the more money you have, the more useful you are to society. It means that what you have to sell/give/work is more valuable and people need it.

Socialism isn't all bad, but generally wants to redistribute resources to people that might not necessarily deserve it. And I think perfect equality is a hoax.

I don't practice wage slavery. I do have my own business, and I don't even have employees. I use technology and softwares as leverage.

And I'm not part of the 1% either. Far from it.

But I understand that to make money, you have to understand how money operates and work for it.

I don't think expecting the government to pay and provide for everything is a good solution.

The gov should definitely take care of some things, but not everything. Some things should be accountable to the individuals themselves.

On a fundamental level, socialism encourages it. And you, you seem to have a misconception of what capitalism is and how money works.

Yes, the best and most effective way to make money is by owning things and hiring people, and letting them work for you. I own a business myself.

You call it 'parasite' and that can be true to an extent when it turns evil and only profit-driven.

If you choose to be a normal wage worker that doesn't own anything, then yeah, capitalism is probably not for you. You'll be stuck in an endless rat race and feel like a slave all your life.

My advice is to stop trading your time for money and start owning things that generate money for you.

That's why I think a healthy balance of both socialism and capitalism is optimal.

Who's going to pay your kindergartens?

Proton recently became a non-profit organisation.

This commitment means that they work for the people.

That's also an opportunity to get free butter for your bread.