Government performs services, and acceptd payment for those services in the form of taxation. The thing that is missing is the recognition that the powers exercised by government are possessed by We The People. We own those powers. We “invest” those powers in the government, who uses those powers to provide paid services to its customers.

We are each owed a return on our “investment” of political authority. Our political authority should not be given to the government freely. We should be individually compensated for it.

We are shareholders.

Universal Basic Income is one possible method of compensating the citizenry for the use of our political authority.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bag_limits

Increasing the bag limit on “billionaire” to something greater than “0” would have a much more appreciable effect on the climate than a thousand families forgoing children.

Oh, this one went somewhere, just not anywhere you wanted it to go.

You can say “billionaires harm society, literally”. That’s a literal statement that is true.

You can say “billionaires benefit society, literally”. Thats a literal statement that is untrue.

You can say “billionaires are human, literally”, so long as you are talking about individuals, and not corporate entities.

You can say “billionaires are steaming piles of shit, figuratively”. They are not literally turds emitting water vapor. That metaphor is quite apt, but not literally true.

Likewise, they are not masses of mutated cells. That metaphor is also apt, bit is not literally true.

You can say “teratomas are cancer, literally”. You can’t say “this argument is literal cancer”. It is figurative cancer, not literal.

I think you will see that OP is saying that “Billionaires are cancer” is not a figurative statement at all, but a literal one.

It is a metaphorical statement rather than a simile, but both metaphors and similes are figurative, not literal.

So, billionaires are not “literally” cancer, but “billionaires are literally cancer” is supposedly a correct use of “literally”?

That is my point. Literally can be used correctly in a statement that is not correct,

This is generally true, but in this particular sentence, the reason the sentence is false is specifically because of the meaning of “literally”.

“The sky is literally purple” is a correct use of “literally” in a false statement. This is what you are trying to argue.

“Billionaires are a cancer” is a correct, figurative statement.

“Billionaires are literally cancer” is false specifically because “literally” does not mean “figuratively”.

You are refuting an argument that I did not make.

I am refuting the argument that would need to be made in order to support your position. I clearly specified that necessity in my refutation. “Cancer” and “billionaire” would have to be synonymous, not analogous, for “literally” to have been used correctly.

What type of cancer are billionaires? Carcinomas are cancers of epithelial tissue, but “society” does not have epithelial tissue. Sarcomas are cancers of musculoskeletal and connective tissues, but “society” does not have bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, etc. Myelomas are cancers of the plasma cells in bone marrow, but again, “society” doesn’t have bones. Leukemias are cancers of the various blood cells, but society doesn’t have “blood”. Lymphomas are cancers of the lymphatic system, but society doesn’t have one of those either.

In fact, “society” does not have biological tissues or organs that could even become literally cancerous. (Members of society do, indeed, have these various organs and tissues, but no member of society has been diagnosed with a “Bezosma” or “Muskaemia”.)

“Billionaires are cancer” is a metaphor. “Billionaires are literally cancer” is simply a false statement, unless “literally” was used, incorrectly, as hyperbole.

My point is that I believe OP was using the word “literally” to mean what it literally means,

You can only rationally make that argument if you are claiming that “society” is a biological organism, like an amoeba or a babboon, presumably evolved from other common ancestors of all life on earth. When you can tell me the scientific name of this organism, and what organs have been affected by tumors, we can start talking about the literality of the “cancer” OP referred to.

As the underlying logic was metaphorical, “literally” was used as figurative hyperbole, not literality.

I don’t think you’re understanding me. I’ll see if I can rephrase.

There is no “jail them for life” option without the law. If you try to imprison them without the law, the law will just come in and free them. You’re suggesting a middle option that is simply not feasible.

I’m asking you to choose between:

• “Guillotine Party”, a political party, much like the Tea Party, dedicated to stripping the problem-class of their excessive political power, perhaps by creating laws to justify their permanent imprisonment. We politically, figuratively decapitate them. This approach can (theoretically) jail them for life, by creating the law that would allow it to happen.

• “guillotine party”, where we solve the problem-class in much the same way that 18th century France solved their aristocracy problem. We literally decapitate them. This approach will not jail them for life; this approach will execute them for anti-revolutionary activities.

While the specific details will vary wildly, these are the only two general options we have available to us to effect reform: politics, or force.

No, actually, it doesn’t make you liable for manslaughter. It probably doesn’t even rise to the level of civil liability for wrongful death. They are compliant with the law, and they make sure of that by having their lawyers write the laws. The “anyone involved in the deaths” includes the deceased themselves, who is determined to bear primary responsibility.

We can override the laws they are writing (Guillotine Party) or we can suspend the laws to hold them accountable (guillotine party). But jailing them without a conviction just isn’t feasible.

You hold the pencil and twirl the cassette around on it.

I think OP used literally correctly here.

Then you do not understand what the word “literally” literally means.

While several treatments would work for either, (such as carving up the offending subject with a knife, or sufficient application of chemical or radiative agents), billionaires are an economic problem, not a biologic one.

There is no law providing for such a sentence, so what you are talking about is either “make billionaireism illegal” or “extrajudicial punishment”. In the case of the former, we need a Guillotine Party to take over the DNC much like the Tea Party took over the GOP. Or, we need a guillotine party, French Revolution style, to resolve the problem-class at its source.

The alternative interpretation is that the second driver was doing 50, and honked at the first driver when they passed doing 70.

I remember as a kid, hearing the phrase “Don’t think about elephants” and elephants being the only thing I could possibly think of.

I don’t know when exactly, but by 40, I had learned to shut off my inner monologue. I realized it when I came across that phrase again, and realized that I could, indeed, consciously stop thinking about elephants.

Also, they do respond to outside stimuli, otherwise they’d be completely inert.

Do they actually respond? Or is it the external stimuli responding to them?

I would pose that same question to you. Why do you feel it is important for the sun to come up at 3:30 in the morning? Why would you impose that absurdity on anyone?

My pajamas:

Over here (NL) our default timezone is already one hour too early,

Then you have a completely different, localized problem, and you should fix that locally. The solution you are advocating is completely unsuitable outside of that localized area. You should change your time zone, so you don’t have this problem.

The sun moves through the sky at 15 degrees per hour. An ideal timezone is one hour, or 15-degrees wide. Solar noon is at 12:00pm (Winter Time) in the middle of that timezone. At the eastern end, solar noon occurs at 11:30AM, and at the west end, 12:30. If the longest day of summer is 16 hours of daylight, the western end of this timezone experiences sunrise at 4:30AM. But, the center of the timezone experiences sunrise at 4AM, and the eastern end of that same, idealized timezone experiences sunrise is an hour earlier: 3:30AM.

Sunrise at 3:30 in the morning

This is nucking futs. Landscapers and construction workers have to wait for noise ordinances to expire at 8:00AM, 4.5 hours after sunrise, just in time for the day to start getting hot.

For coordinating the activities of daylight-oriented workers with clock-oriented workers/students, winter time is terrible. But summer time is actually very reasonable. In summer time, (with idealized timezones):

• The earliest possible sunrise (on a 16-hour summer day, east end of the time zone) is 4:30AM. (The west end of that timezone has sunrise at a more reasonable 5:30AM)

• The latest possible sunrise (on an 8-hour winter day, west end of the time zone) is 9:30AM (The east end of that timezone experiences that sunrise at a more reasonable 8:30AM)

• Earliest possible sunset is 4:30PM (east end of the zone, 8-hour winter day; with the west end experiencing it at 5:30PM)

• Latest possible sunset is 9:30PM (west end of the zone, 16-hour summer day; the east end experiences that same sunset at 8:30PM)

None of these extremes are ideal, but none of them are completely ridiculous either. Year-round Summer time is simply the best alternative to the biannual time change.

Nah, it would be far less disruptive to stick with the time we already use for 3/4 of the year. Winter time is the problem.