Quake3World

what good is a society that doesn't look after the individual?

given our resources, why do we allow poverty to exist?

Don't make me start limiting your intellectual threads.

i only made 2

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:what good is a society that doesn't look after the individual?

No good.

...why do we allow poverty to exist?

Greed.

Yes. Math is fun, eh?

EDIT: I'm not letting you post in this thread, it's way over your head.

-DM

ok puff, back away from the vaporizer...

Hey toxic, I checked out your pictures. Most of them were in focus and everything, good job on your career, mate.

rugged individualism builds scoiety

Dukester wrote:rugged individualism builds scoiety

how?

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:what good is a society that doesn't look after the individual?

A society that doesn't excessively interfere with the actions of an individual, looks after the individual's interest.

a parrot confided in me

I refuse to do your homework

Those who can't, teach.

Massive Quasars wrote:a parrot confided in me

not be confused with this

Massive Quasars wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:what good is a society that doesn't look after the individual?

A society that doesn't excessively interfere with the actions of an individual, looks after the individual's interest.

Now that does make you think, doesn't it

Of course the individual is more important than society. However, poor people aren't individuals, only rich people with power are.

mjrpes wrote:Of course the individual is more important than society. However, poor people aren't individuals, only rich people with power are.

that's a good point, mjrpes, and I'll tell you why

FYI we allow poverty to exist for the same reasons we have ineffectual school systems. If school worked, we'd have people graduating, ready to go out and take the jobs of their parents right away. Nobody wants that, the idea is to create a low base that supports it all.

mjrpes wrote:Of course the individual is more important than society. However, poor people aren't individuals, only rich people with power are.

Free market advocates seem to come off like that, and there's likely some real antipathy towards the poor because it's believed they're wholly or mostly responsible for their situation (according to some among this self-identified group).

Poverty must exist to allow for riches. Evil must exist to allow for good. What is the point of doing anything at all if everything in life is gray?

If people who worked at McDonalds lived just as well as CEOs who would want the responsibility of being CEO? If CEOs lived like people who worked at McDonalds why would anyone want the responsibility of CEO?

We are not species that functions as a whole. We are nothing more than wolves competing to be the alpha male. Working had to improve our lives and the lives of our children. Emotion keeps us from outright betrayal of our own kind but given a harsh enough ultimatum, any of us would choose individual pursuits over a society's desires.

Society > Individuals

bitWISE wrote:Poverty must exist to allow for riches. Evil must exist to allow for good. What is the point of doing anything at all if everything in life is gray?

If people who worked at McDonalds lived just as well as CEOs who would want the responsibility of being CEO? If CEOs lived like people who worked at McDonalds why would anyone want the responsibility of CEO?

We are not species that functions as a whole. We are nothing more than wolves competing to be the alpha male. Working had to improve our lives and the lives of our children. Emotion keeps us from outright betrayal of our own kind but given a harsh enough ultimatum, any of us would choose individual pursuits over a society's desires.

Poverty doesn't have to exist, material wealth gains have the potential to make no nation poor in absolute terms. In relative terms of course, some nations will still be considered poorer than others.

Massive Quasars wrote:

bitWISE wrote:Poverty must exist to allow for riches. Evil must exist to allow for good. What is the point of doing anything at all if everything in life is gray?

If people who worked at McDonalds lived just as well as CEOs who would want the responsibility of being CEO? If CEOs lived like people who worked at McDonalds why would anyone want the responsibility of CEO?

We are not species that functions as a whole. We are nothing more than wolves competing to be the alpha male. Working had to improve our lives and the lives of our children. Emotion keeps us from outright betrayal of our own kind but given a harsh enough ultimatum, any of us would choose individual pursuits over a society's desires.

Poverty doesn't have to exist, material wealth gains have the potential to make no nation poor in absolute terms. In relative terms of course, some nations will still be considered poorer than others.

Wouldn't that just be raising the bar of poverty? Unless everyone is equal there will always be have and have-nots.

bitWISE wrote: Wouldn't that just be raising the bar of poverty? Unless everyone is equal there will always be have and have-nots.

Yes it would raise the bar, but the crippling poverty we're familiar with would be virtually non-existant.

There's much to this discussion I'd rather not get into here, so I'll leave it at that.