There was no denial that Freddy Mercury engaged in sexual relationships with men, but those relationships should not delegitimize or downplay his relationships with women by insinuating that any relations with a man make him gay and only engaging with women to fit in.
Taxing churches just for being churches would be counter-productive. What needs to happen is the current set of rules regulating what counts as a church and what doesn’t needs to be tightened and enforced. There are tons of shit people running churches as their own personal profit machines and those need shut down. The Methodist churches built in every town in America, for example, are only barely hanging on by a thread and bring more good to their neighborhood than they do harm; their loss would be tragic.
And how does a dictatorship by a particular class meaningfully differentiate itself from a dictatorship by an individual? On a practical level, would the dictatorial class elect their own leaders democratically, have internal struggles to chose the dominant leader based on perceived merits and authority, or expect the collective of the class rule autonomously?
I can intuit this system working with democratic internal elections, but i would struggle to refer to such a system as a “doctatorship”. The proletariet don’t represent a homogeneous group with uniform needs and so would need robust democratic structures for the system to not break down into authoritarianism the first less than perfectly cool leader shows up.
Also, how do you keep the bourgeoisie from just claiming to be proletariat and gaining access to the leadership class over the immediate time frame without inducing cruelty that will earn retaliation? And then again how do you prevent infiltration over the course of generations without committing genocide? I can see maybe just wanting to strip all of the bourgeoisie of their wealth and attempting to integrate into the proletariat, but without strong democratic structures the formerly powerful would trivially coopt the whole system for their gain, or even sabatoge it to prevent others from “getting ahead” or even to exact revenge?
This idea would seem to rest on the logic that any given poor person would be less likely to be corrupted by power than a given rich person (presumably due to their experiences being poor). In my experience when you give someone who is used to destitution access to power and resources their instincts are incredibly self serving. Being part of the proletariat does not automatically indicate any amount of empathy, humility, self control, forward thinking, or any other characteristic of a good, fair leader.
Pro tip: medical debt doesn’t affect your credit score
Those would be the unapologetic misogynist and they need a different flavor of help than simply being exposed to positive social interactions with women to overcome anxiety.