People are like sheep. When they wake up some day then they won't be enslaved and lead by the power hungry of the world. When they learn to look out for themselves they won't have their hands outstretched to the government. People in government, especially liberals, like to convince the sheep that they don't know any better and can't help themselves, that's how the get elected. Smart and wise people gain an upperhand in the world. Dumb people need to wake up and be free and independent and govern themselves, then the rich and powerful will vaporize.
2007-11-30 02:36:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
In a functional free society some will be rich, some will be poor and some will be comfortable but neither rich nor poor. To consider that everyone may at one point be rich is illogical for the same reasons you ask about. Who will mow the lawns, shine the shoes of the rich? On the other hand if we are believe we can entirely replace labor with technology some semblence of a broad redistribution of wealth is possible. A forced or tacitly enabled redistribution of wealth to end or mitigate poverty is only as good a the means chosen to implement it. Meaning, the rich simply giving half their wealth to the poor will not guarantee an end to poverty. There must be societal changes, an addressing of the reasons why some poor remain poor over generations for a real move toward the elimination of poverty is possible. Hope this helps.
2007-11-30 09:56:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by opinionator 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
They say wrong; that"the majority must suffer in order to make the minority happier"
is an insult to all those who know.
Then"if all the people become rich",
very much seems like a fairytale;probably
one that has been taught through-the-ages,
And still it goes on.
All i can say is so much for the"new world";
for if my un-brave opinion has worth then
new world america has serious problems-
problems connected with this psych-babble
that could Still be being taught(as it was
by wittgenstein in europe).
And for the rest?
Let them keep worshiping their god-of-definitions(!);like the polititions who love the
sound of their own voices(the sound,not the
content!),so too do students learn to love
the quick easy fix from their teacher.
2007-11-30 09:56:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by peter m 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No one 'must' suffer. Those with the means have a moral obligation to help those in need. The rich are entitled to be rich, the non rich are entitled to a fair deal - adequate compensation for the work they do, and opportunity to improve their lot in life. Everyone, no matter what their circumstances, is entitled to basic human dignity. The effects of deep poverty are properly addressed by giving - either freely or collectively through social programs paid for with taxes. The causes of deep poverty are properly addressed by ensuring fairness of law, fairness of opportunity, access to education, and creation of opportunity via a vibrant economy. (Which we know communism cannot provide).
One cannot solve the problem by only addressing the effects, but not doing so is morally unacceptable.
2007-11-30 10:21:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by jehen 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
actually, i think its the minority that suffers, depending on how you are defining minority, by numbers or by a sense of inferiority
and it depends on how you define poverty, living below a high standard, or living without basics
wow , not specific to your topic, but an amazing fact i read yesterday (we know how facts are, to be taken with the ol grain of salt)
anyway, according to the census, here in Georgia 39 percent of immigrants live at or below the poverty level, while only 26 percent of native born families do! say what, 26 percent are living below the poverty level? this makes more of a case for improving conditions for all, then it does against immigration, plus, funny thing, what they are basing poverty on is actually more then i earn, then my family lives on,
and i am not poor, i have a car, a phone, a cell phone, cable, a computer, food, shelter, clothing, i even have extras, like my special anti-wrinkle cream, lol so its all relative, yes there are poor people, but i dont think in America we really have a current concept of what being poor is,
2007-11-30 10:56:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by dlin333 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Modern economics, has, as the condition for its possibility, the necessity of an underclass. It's goal is to keep this group as small a minority as possible, a goal that has had rather uneven success. No one has yet to propose an alternative which does almost immediately degenerate into terror and totalitarianism.
2007-11-30 09:28:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by Timaeus 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I wish I was intelligent enough to answer this question, or better still to ask it in the first place. A shoe polisher and defender I'll be.
2007-11-30 09:32:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
to remain a majority is a bliss and to be a minority a cat walk. so,where's the sufferring boss???
2007-11-30 09:33:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by 666 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Communism doesn't work does it?
There will always be a pecking order... like there always is in the animal kingdom.
2007-11-30 11:16:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
are you saying that the '>rich majority suffer<' to help the poor?? that is ridiculous. who are ""they""???
sound like greedy capitalist to me. i don't care what country "they" are from.
2007-11-30 12:02:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by Lady Louisa 4
·
0⤊
0⤋