Food, clothing, and shelter. Those are needs. The only things acceptable after that are knowledge, wisdom, uderstanding, freedom, justice, equality, love, peace, and happiness. All others are selfish covets. And the list that I placed of things that satisfy a human soul can corrupt if not taken heed to with right thought and/or effort.
PEACE!
EDIT: The line is always there, but most are out of bounds. It would take a combined effort for mankind on a whole to aknowledge sovereignity. Then each individual can take it on thier own from there with help from like minds. Those willing to help by charity shown and dedicated by some in many forms. And when you say society, that is a lost cause except in the mind of ones self. The problem is one ALWAYS wants to rule another one way or another. By economics, polotics, religion, etc.
2007-01-10 12:19:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by justsomequest 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Is it society's role to draw the line? Is the government paying for a $500 dinner for two for someone somewhere? Supposedly as long as someone is willing and able to work they can get what they NEED, if they have money left over they get what they WANT. If they are unable to work, they just get what they NEED. I don't claim it's perfect, but hasn't changed that I know of?
2007-01-10 12:19:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by clueless_nerd 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I completely agree with you. The line was drawn the day the Constitution was drafted, and has since then become blurred by the extremists who suck poor, unsuspecting, weak-minded citizens into their "Kool-Aid Cults". I think it would be ludicrous to instate a governmental section responsible for previewing and deciding the validity of new religions because that would contradict the separation of church and state, but something has to be done! Freedom of Religion only protects the right to freely practice a chosen religion. Unfortunately, it fails to protect the minds of individuals being swayed by the way-too-extreme fanatics.
2016-05-23 07:42:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's not acceptable to sane poeple who understand the concept of turning off the television.
Then again, the Romans and the Greeks were just like us before their Empires failed.
2007-01-10 13:43:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by The Garden of Fragile Egos 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Nothing that is edible is worth $500 for two people.
Society has no line to draw that is why we have bankruptcy courts and collection agencies.
2007-01-10 12:18:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by It's been a while........... 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Wild - isn't it? Fancy cars - big huge houses - designer bags - it all baffles me. I consider myself incredibly wealthy. I rent a duplex and drive a 1990 car. And I am among the wealthiest in the world! The greed in our country sickens me sometimes.
I think people forget to count their blessings. Or maybe they just want more to count.
2007-01-10 12:17:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by liddabet 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
It become acceptable if one can gain more than the cost, get more benefit than the expenses :P
"Needs" is when one can't live without, "Wants" is when one can live but can't sleep without.
2007-01-10 12:22:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by sleepless in seattle 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
it is only acceptable if a celebration of extreme size, or you're rich. spending that on a date is unreasonable, make sure you're getting what u paid 4.
2007-01-10 12:15:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋