Would you personally accept a lower standard of living if this would mean greater equity throughout the world?

Question

Do you think most Americans would be willing to accept a substantially lower standard of living if this would, somehow, bring about the reduction of worldwide phenomena such as the following?

Starvation
Genocide
Death squads
Unequal treatment of women
Racial and other discrimination
Illiteracy
Pollution
Unwarrated wiretaps
Spying on citizens / Watch Lists
Suspension of habeas corpus
Rigged elections
Torture of prisoners
Arrests for crimes not yet committed
Illicit drug trade
Weapons trade
Terrorism

Do you feel that the U.S. government, multinational corporations, and U.S. citizens have contributed to these worldwide phenomena? If yes, how so?

Answer 1

You are brave to even ask this question. I wonder what the other responses will be, if any. The No's and skeptics will definitely be greater. But personally speaking, I am on the yes side.

But then again, I am a socialist (shhh, please don't tell anyone else). And as I'm sure you know, most Americans equate socialists with Satan.

They don't seem to understand that socialism is only about every child and human being having the right to basic food, shelter, rent, health care, and clothing - regardless of whether they deserve it or not.

That's it. Everything after that is up to individual choice and effort. It does NOT mean that everybody is the same, is not allowed to work hard to become richer, has to live exactly alike and wear the same clothes, or that everybody is restricted to the basics and nothing more.

Unfortunately, these ideas are viewed by Americans as dangerous, threatening, rebellious, radical, and preposterous. You are not even allowed to discuss these ideas in school, except for sociology classes in university.

Needless to say, it is incredibly lonely to be a socialist. But in my opinion, it is the only present system we know of that has a chance of alleviating the many problems of the world you listed. However, such a system will not be considered, debated, accepted, supported, or implemented until a change in consciousness of people worldwide, and an awareness that our government, MNCs, and ourselves are part of the problem that supports the current reality of the world. The governments and political ideals we permit are always a reflection of our own state of consciousness.

So, "Yes" to the last questions as well. The US is the biggest arms manufacturer/exporter in the world, spending more on defense than the next 14 nations COMBINED. 30% every year on defense, 6% on education, and a couple % on foreign aid? Follow the money trail to see where our priorities lie. The US government/MNCs do not support freedom and democracy (we funded Mr. Saddam Hussein), it supports its own interests, which include profits, power, influence, and security.

These also happen to be our own primary values - not world peace and eliminating poverty. Of course, Americans are not heartless, we do care - just not that much. Most of us are too busy & worried about how to take care of ourselves & families, rather than the world. Our happiness is primary - not that of the world. This is quite understandable, because we live in an overly capitalistic society which compels people to think of themselves first in order to survive, rather than to think of others. And we have been "educated" to believe that our way is the best and only way, and any other way is "evil".

It is only when world peace becomes our top priority, that our governments will begin to reflect our will, and world peace will be created. But there is no world peace, because there is no strong desire for peace within the hearts of humankind. And as our hearts are, so the world is.

Answer 2

No.

I would not accept a lower standard of living for these things.

This is because I am not sentimental; I am a capitalist. And capitalism is brutal. I think that it is ironic that we are a captialist nation (mostly) that is Christian in nature as well. No TRUE Christian can say that they wouldn't accept worse living conditions if it would reduce these; no capitalist could care. But Americans have never been consistent as a whole. Nor do I expect us to all be. I only worry about myself. As for equality... If you want to hear my ideas on equality, see Nietzsche. Skip the racial valuations, that's all.

I do believe that we've contributed to these worldwide phenomena, by not prioritizing on them. As proof of what my view is, if we were willing to ameliorate the world's conditions by curtailing our own extravegance, we would have already; although each individual will generally feel worse than I do to say so explicitly, the collective, net attitude is clearly indifference to those things which cannot secure future or current interests of ours. This does not make us far sighted; we may not see that the future will prove this not in our best interests of course. But it is clear that we are doing nothing to help support the cessation of these activities, as a whole. And apathy is the most subtle way of supporting the status quo, and the status quo includes these phenomena. This does not mean that I believe that there is a direct link between how much money and how much of the standard of living that we all sacrifice and how much these go down, such as a function y=mx, with m being some constant; but while we're willing to invest in some things which are folly from an expected return on investment (i.e. a wall between us and Mexico....) we are not willing to substantially invest any monies (other than from the individual - we don't allocate significant government monies, for instance) for stopping these issues.

Thus, ethics aside, and other arguements which could prolong this answer aside as well, from basic attitudes and actions, we can safely conclude that the average American (while they may say they care and sympathize with the world and would take a hit on their standard of living for them...) will not sacrifice to end these problems once they are lined up with enough other Americans, and can ignore these problems with no guilt or thought. This is not just me; this is apparent on the whole judged by the net actions we all demonstrate. And my belief that we contribute, well, that's mostly my beliefs. But I think they make sense, which is why they ARE my beliefs.

Take care.

Answer 3

One can still be a capitalist and not believe in a winner takes all, loser starves society. Europe is not the desolate wasteland you suggest it might be, and you are randomly choosing factors to compare. Wouldn't Food security, personal security, and job security be more valuable to a person than an increase in occupied Sq/f? Having access to modern appliances is almost difficult than not. Any rental home comes with a kitchen already furnished. If you believe that our poor has it too good, and we should further lower the standard of living in America so that the poor have truly nothing and the rich have everything, you could just pick up and go to Somalia, and not have to ruin this country for everyone else.

Answer 4

Yes, but neither I, nor any government, can make that decision for anyone else. So I would adamantly oppose establishing a governmental system of forcible redistribution of wealth from the rich in the world to the poor.

To answer your last question, the answer is yes. BUT to the extent that multinational corporations have stuck to the business of production and distribution, and to the extent that the U.S. government has stuck to the business of maintaining security for the protection free trade (true free trade, not the cronyism we are seeing today), the answer is no. Voluntary trade, production and consumption generally reduce the phenomena you have listed.

Answer 5

Yes, but I have enough so much of the money I spend is for things I don't really need and am old enough to know what thing are necessary for my happiness. I don't think the majority of Americans feel this way because many are just getting by, and others think having huge houses and expensive cars etc will bring happiness.
Except for pollution and the drug trade I don't think we are major contributors to these things outside of our own country. There always has been a lot of misery and evil in the world.

Answer 6

NO... I have my standard of living due to MY work and desire to be where I am. Lowering MY standards will not help anyone. ONLY THEY can make the change in their lives. If someone thinks their life sucks then they need to change what they are doing.

All the other things will continue in life as long as there is government through out the world. Benn going on since the dawn of time and will continue. Changing ones standards to help someone who will not help them self will accomplish nothing.

Answer 7

100% NO.

How exactly are American's standard of living causing problems in North Korea, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Turkmenistan .....
These places are run by tyrants that have nothing to do American's standard of living.

Dragging one person down does not lift another person up. Hair-brain ideas like that keep people poor.
.

Answer 8

yes I would go for it ,
besides ;
If the top 100 richest companies contribute only 2% of their wealth to poor,,,there will be no poor people on the world..
hurting fact, huh?

Answer 9

This idea looks great on paper. In reality though, we would be lucky if even one percent of the American population would actually be amenable and do it.

Answer 10

Why don't you go first and let us know how it works out.