2006-09-14 00:16:24 · 10 answers · asked by Nicole 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Republican CONS would no longer exist. They depend on the enslavement of society to feather their nests.
2006-09-14 00:42:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There does not need to be poverty, there are enough resources in the world for everyone to live a decent life. Yes, there would always be different levels, some would have more than others, and this is fine. But there need not and should not be poverty. Everyone can have enough. Enough food, clothing, shelter, medical care and available education to improve your station in life. Poverty exists because great wealth exists. Since some people feel that they need so much more wealth than they have any use for, and since they feel that they should be free to pass this wealth on to their descendents with no taxes or any other loss of capital, this does not leave enough for everyone to have enough. If there was no poverty everyone would have enough; crime would go way down, hatred would diminish and we could possibly have a peaceful life.
2006-09-14 00:51:50 · answer #2 · answered by irongrama 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I really don't know, but I am going to guess that if you don't have people that are impoverished, then middle and upper class people would have no idea what it was like to have it good. Poverty give us perspective. I would love to wipe out poverty with one wave of the wand, but as long as it is here, I thought I would mention the consolation.
2006-09-14 00:19:31 · answer #3 · answered by Joey 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
More laid-back, relaxed. Of course, the idea of an Earth without ANY poverty seems highly unlikely.
2006-09-14 00:18:57 · answer #4 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is somewhat hypothetical. Poverty is a relative term and there will always be poverty whereever richness is there. No body can eliminate its.
2006-09-14 00:19:27 · answer #5 · answered by Ifeelso706 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
poverty is not an absolute term, the poor in the US are very rich in Bangladeshi terms.
someone always has less than others in his neighborhoods or state, he is defined as poor, complete equality in income and property is possible in a nest of ants, not an ant hill of humans.
2006-09-14 00:21:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Great for everyone, except those that are used to being in financial control of everything. Everyone would eat, be educated, and have medical care. There is a downside, but I can't think of what it could be at this moment.
2006-09-14 00:20:24 · answer #7 · answered by mindrizzle 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Strange but nice
2006-09-14 00:18:42 · answer #8 · answered by N0_white_flag 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It would be great if there was a viable way to accomplish that.
2006-09-14 00:21:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
decent living for everyone
2006-09-14 00:17:20 · answer #10 · answered by ash 7 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋