people love money more than life...

[mod_plod]

I'm running a pole on around my town (very small place) asking one simple question.

If you could have
a) A life with everything you needed to survive comfortably provided free for life.
or
b) 100,000,000 $

What would you choose?

Most, so far have picked b....

(Post your answers below.)

When asked why, many said something like "so I don’t have to worry about bills and I can buy what I want".

When faced with the option of being rich or not having to pay for healthcare or education, 80% would rather be rich.

Some responded with "then I would be rich and could do what ever I wanted".

The power of money is intoxicating, and the promise of the freedoms and power it offers, prevents us from seeing the correct choice even for our own well being.

[OleMarxco]

I definately would choose A, if you'd asked me. Anything else I can get on myself's own merit - That, and one still has to pay taxes :)

[Matthew The Great]

It is not a very good question, though. In a capitalistic society you could buy everything you needed to survive comfortably with that much money.

[Dr.Stein]

Money is a tool to gain power in America. If you have money you can gain power. When posed that question people will pick money because they will see it as a way to get to the top.

[Monty Cantsin]

i would have picked b)

one of the reasons why the left isnt bigger is because we dont have enough capital.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I would pick B) because even pounds sterling it is a lot of money, and can provide what A) can and then some.

Are you implying it's somehow morally wrong to be rich?

[Zingu]

A)

Who knows what can happen to money? Inflation, lawsuits....ect...ect.....A is MUCH more wise to pick, since it actually guarantees it forever, no matter what happens to the market or anything else.

[Enragé]

as the socialist party (SP) leader in my country once said:

"We socialists are not against wealth, we are against poverty!"

[Idealist]

I'd choose the money and donate atleast half to causes i belive in.

[OleMarxco]

And what causes are they, you say - a "use ay"? ;)

[Idealist]

you say - a "use ay"? ;)

:huh: HUH?

[bolshevik butcher]

a, for a start that's way more money, to provide for a house, food etc.

[Spoonman]

I have never felt the need for money and I am extremely grateful that I feel this way because yes it is true that many people value money over their life and the developement of their own soul. I don't even have an income. I stay at home and study music, philosophy, history, politics and visual art. I go out with friends and adventure. Doing these things gives me more pleasure than a wawd of cash ever could.

[jake_crocker]

Well, money isn't everything that's for sure. But then, money is needed to do most things outside of ones head. To have a house, or clothes you need money be it earned of from benefits. This is unless there is a marxist state without money ... :D

[OleMarxco]

"Marxist" state, eh, huh? Never heard'o it! Musta' been new thing, ah? No? :)


Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:15 PM

you say - a "use ay"? ;)

:huh: HUH?
A practical joke: "You say" sounds just like "use ay" :D

[The Apathetic Atheist]

I choose b). I would then use that money to start a band in which I sing. I would then get more and more money to further my reach.

[apathy maybe]

A is the obvious one. You wouldn't have to worry about bills if you didn't have any.

If you are living a comfortable life why do you need more?

You then have more time to offer the movement. You could get a job to raise money for it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:59 PM
A)

Who knows what can happen to money? Inflation, lawsuits....ect...ect.....A is MUCH more wise to pick, since it actually guarantees it forever, no matter what happens to the market or anything else.
Erm, if inflation is enough to significantly decrease your wealth, everyone is fucked, not just you. And with that amount of money moving to the UK can prevent an awful lot of lawsuits, because getting sued for coughing at the wrong moment is practically impossible.

I'd rather have the money. I like disposable income.

[1936]

Dude, with that much money you wouldnt need all that stuf to survive...youd just buy what you need

[Redmau5]

Take the money, because then you could help others as well as yourself.

[Red_Dreamer_in_China]

i would like to choose a)
money is important. but we don't need to be businessmen.
money is the root of all evil.
Being a great man doesn't mean being rich. but we don't need to show others that we are socialist or communist by being poor.

[dawson]

personaly i'd choose 'B'.Mainly for the fact, i know i could live comfortably for the rest of my life with the money, and still have time to enjoy life. Money is merely a way of being able to have things, that will make our lives more fun/enjoyable. But i think that know, in modern life, there are too many people, working for money alone, and not realising the fact that they need to enjoy life....

[viva le revolution]

Money is at the root of all conflict. Money is what separates us from the animals. That we are willing to kill fellow human beings over little pieces of paper!
Money makes man the messiah of the animals.

[codyvo]

I would choose A.
With A you can spend the rest of your life doing whatever you want and have no worries, with B you would have to worry about inflation or a major crisis or disaster, plus why would you need all that money anyway.

[rikaguilera]

I like this question. I had to think about it a bit, but came up with MY answer based on MY life and hopes. I would choose B. Why? Well, my first quick answer was to say "A", as I am a minamilist, and don't go in for material gain and status. But then in giving it much more thought, I realized that my day to day life is trying to help others anyway, so why not think of them and not my life. The money is a very large sum, and would go very far to help support a revolt in the southern americas. It would help out the Zapatistas in their fight. I might just buy the right kind of publicity to bring attention to what is important in this world. It would be a great way to fight capitalism buy using the marketing ideas that capitalist have practically turned into a religion. 100 million would help so many people that I feel I would have to choose "B". Would it change my life. Yes, it would enable me to reach so many more real people in this world and maybe then begin a change toward what is right. How many people can it feed? How many people will it get medicine and care to? I choose "B", and I would do my part.

[apathy maybe]

If you chose the life of comfort you would be able to make more money by working.

You could dedicate time to your favourite cause.

If you pick the money, it will run out. The problems of inflation will hit you. If you give it away now what?

[mundo libre]

I think we should be aware of the fact that money was made to make life easier but now it has become the god of all human beings. so you have money FOR feeling good, but if you could feel good and be happy without it, then why would anyone need money, do animals need money? No- and they live a much more harmonic live than we do.
But it's true that we live in a capitalistic society where it would be usefull to have money for fighting capitalism with it's own weapons, but if it comes to our selves, i think everyone who thinks about live would pick "b"
we should not forget that money is only a tool, and who needs a tool without anything to repair?

[slim]

Money is not a thing as it is seen. It is a representation of values. The love of this representation (that can cause greed, suffering, jealousy and other vices) is evil.

[OleMarxco]

But is only because some people might kill over it (armed robberies of banks, value trains/transports) and if we do, it is not evil, but we are....for embracing it is a reason for slaughtering! Over MATERIAL EXCHANGE! Yet despite that, it is totally illogical! Why go for the capital, when you can go straight for what you want and stop all this meaningless circumventing without no direction (Consumerism)!

Yes, it is indeed nothing but a representation of values, and the love for it is hollow...it is the favorable feeling of USING it up, that is "teh goal"..unfortunately...And it is not a "thing" as it is seen..as in permanent properity...but definately, and obviously, a "throw-away-thang", worth so little in the longer run, and kept so shortly before thrown into another luxury. BAH! :P


Originally posted by "Mundo Liebre"
we should not forget that money is only a tool, and who needs a tool without anything to repair?

VERY WISE WORDS INDEED.
Worthy of my endless quote echoing into eternity! ;)

[Free Spirit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:30 AM
money is the root of all evil.

It is not evil of itself . It is the plant as our human dissatisfaction is the root.

I would not choose money as for a simple reason that says richness is not about capital. I’m rich but not on money while the capitalists are poor.
If you're happy and satisfied with your grain, you have a lot to be happy about. But if you think you will be happy if your grain turns into “a lot” by getting more, there will not be anything left for satisfaction and therefore no happiness.
For everything that makes me rich without money doesn't involve politics to mess it up but only my dissatisfaction that is the capitalist itself.

[MetaZuton]

'Evil' is what men do to one another to achieve their desires
'Evil' is our continuing failure to create a system to mediate between the conflicting desires of men

In the domain of thought, contemplation and enlightenment there is little 'natural' conflict, because we can all possess the power of thought without it infringing on someone else's power of thought. Mediation is natural.

The material domain is where the peace begins to fall apart. Conflict is a natural part of the system. The earliest steps towards resolution is the achievement of domination by one group (or individual) of another group. This involved a spread of the conflict into the domain of thought. If a person thinks its right for you to be their master, it's that little bit easier to be their master.
Given time and the development of the means of production, and the landscape on which the conflict was fought (and possibly resolved) changes, creating new conflicts which temporarily destabilise the system, until it adapts to resolve them.

Given the exponential (generally) development of the environment, we might expect an exponential growth in the frequency of destabilising factors, whilst the system has to attempt to keep pace.
We might imagine an event horizon, at which the system loses the ability to keep pace with the destabilising factors. In individual subsystems of the overall system we can see the result of this: civil war, revolution, severe economic deprevation and a whole other load of bad news.

We might also imagine that the system could adapt exponential adaptation.

Either way, all of this conflict is essentially rooted in material concerns. The only important issue should be the domain of thought and mood, which have the prerequisites of some few material resources. Once we have food, water and shelter we can only advance our appreciation of things through greater enlightenment.
A worker in an industrial nation has more wealth than a thousand ancient kings, but we didn't exactly hear them moaning, did we? In fact, by all accounts they had a fucking riot.
The problem is that in order for them to be locked into the means of production which maintains the opulence of their masters, they require to be kept in a state of mind that places comparitive material concerns as the prerequisite for all, or most, of their psychological concerns.

[C_Rasmussen]

I would pick B for the very fact that I could help out the Salvation Army here where I live and then I could have money for myself as well :).

[Jazzy]

B) For the simple reason that it would give me enough money to live comfortably and be able to help others.

[Che1990]

It's a tough one. If you choose A you have the basic essentials you need to live for an unlimited period of tim but you can't help others. If you choose B you can help yourself and others but the money will eventually run out meaning you and the others will be back where you started. I don't know what I would choose.

[rikaguilera]

But you would'nt be back where you started. It would depend on what you did with the money once obtained. Why would'nt you use it to start a movement. That is surely not something that would die (if done properly) once your wallet ran dry. Why not gather the right info, and give to the right people so that your cause will continue. Helping so many people will allow you the recognition to spread your word to open minds. Showing people, that are in need, why they are in their situation, and how they can help you help others will keep your cause going long after you are even gone.
I am a little dis-hearted by some of the responses as being too "me, me, me" with this question. This would be a perfect opportunity to reach more people.
I still say that I would pick "B" , for the reasons that I listed earlier in this thread. And the people that I would help would more than likely not be in the U.S.

[S_Nylia]

I would have to say i would pick A) Where as the money would be a nice thought , if you lost it all as easy as it is to do so know you would be left with nothing but debt . But at the same time you could put the money into getting you everything you ever need , but people are starting to depend to much on money know a days what would happen to all of these people how are used to money keeping them happy if money suddenly becomes obsolete?I know it will probably never happen but if you get used to not depending on it for more than nessecities then if it does all go out of the window then you wont miss it half as much as these rich people. Or maybe i am just used to not having the money so i wouldnt know what i was missing even if i didnt chose it. :blink:

[CheMN]

Most people want money because they believe that money will make their life complete and give them happiness. But what they don't realize, money doesn't make you happy. You cannot buy happiness. You must seek it out.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:34 AM

Erm, if inflation is enough to significantly decrease your wealth, everyone is fucked, not just you. And with that amount of money moving to the UK can prevent an awful lot of lawsuits, because getting sued for coughing at the wrong moment is practically impossible.

I'd rather have the money. I like disposable income.
You are twisting it, the option was a guarentee of a comfortable life, no matter what. So, you are even guarenteed even if inflation comes around or the stock market crashes.

[mod_plod]

wow a lot of responses, sorry I never cam back sooner, but I have read most of the responses above, it seems that B is the most populer reply. comming from a socalist camp, thats quite a shock. Money seems to be the root of all our dreams no matter what route we wish the world to take.

I beleave that untill we shake of this aniquated dream of being rich and powerfull and using such to change the world to our own liking, mankine as a whole will continue to revolve around the rich right, following the dreams of the greedy and forgeting the needs of the many.

I will continue to read the threst of the posts later. Thanks all for posting.

[mod_plod]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 1 2005, 07:09 AM
If you chose the life of comfort you would be able to make more money by working.

You could dedicate time to your favourite cause.

If you pick the money, it will run out. The problems of inflation will hit you. If you give it away now what?
My point exactly... money is only transiant. no matter how much you have you will one day run out. :ph34r:

[mod_plod]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 06:00 PM
It's a tough one. If you choose A you have the basic essentials you need to live for an unlimited period of tim but you can't help others. If you choose B you can help yourself and others but the money will eventually run out meaning you and the others will be back where you started. I don't know what I would choose.
A true answer :)

This is an answer I have not seen often when asking this question.

Most pick one or the other. Nice to see someone thinks 'outside the box'.

This is the delema. do we live to our needs or the needs of others? we can sustain ourselves for ever, we can not sustain each other for long.

If we sustain ourselves, we become selfish and arogant, if we help others we starve and falter. :unsure:

[Motorcycle_diAries]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:14 PM
I definately would choose A, if you'd asked me. Anything else I can get on myself's own merit - That, and one still has to pay taxes :)
Damn!! i hate paying taxes.

[OleMarxco]

Oh, well, seeing as I could "help" alot more with B (Even 'tho I get more with A and could "spread it around"?) the B one would run out even faster if I used it on more people than me, I couldn't satisfy the whole world anyways. 'Course I would try, but I would give it to some poor people and suggest to them to PUT IT IN THE MOTHERFUCKIN' BANK ~~ yee-haw ;)

[rise_up]

I think i'll choose A. coz i don't really need money anyway.i'm broke and always will be.and i'm happy.

''it's better to die broke and happy than cry all the way to the bank'' -melomane

[werewolf]

A- As long as I have my guitar, art, and writing, I'd be fine with living in a lean-to somewhere in a forest and needing to hunt for my food. I like working for what I want, I'd never be content with a lot of money at once.

[Kitbag]

I don't think I'd be able to stand not earning my money. If I was to [b] earn [b] $100, 000, 000 doing something I love then fine, but even then I wouldn't need it, except for what I need to survive well. The rest would go to charity, or a fund for Leftie Organisations, or I'd save it to help fund the revolution. So, probably A, even though it's a tough choice. That's the thing, nobody thinks about what all that money can do to just one person, it can corrupt, spoil, and destroy your decency among other, less fortunate people.

[mod_plod]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 08:59 AM
I would pick B) because even pounds sterling it is a lot of money, and can provide what A) can and then some.

Are you implying it's somehow morally wrong to be rich?
If by rich you mean 'exsessivly' rich then yes I would have to say its morally wrong to allow your wealth to sit in a bank while millions could use it.

being well off and having a 'small' amount of savings, ok, but being rich just because you are, and forgetting those that slaved and toiled to bring you such wealth is wrong.


greed is wrong!

[Oglaigh na hEireann]

If the choice was up to myself, the answer would definately be A. There is no substitute for personal well-being and happiness. Money is corruption. Money leads to depression. Although things may start out well with having $100,000,000, eventually you will run out of material things to buy. People around you may only like you for your money, and you could never truly know when they actually like the person you are. Money can't buy love, sure it might buy a prostitute, but do you feel like being the dirty old man down the street?

Look at the way societies all around the world are beginning to function. It doesn't matter if you live in North America, Europe or even Asia, personal wealth will bring you some form of power and the feeling of self satisfaction. Most North American teenagers spend all their time in the malls trying to find the more expensive crap to buy so they can be wearing the popular clothing to fit in. What happened to just being yourself and using your head to gain friends? What happened to spending weekends playing in bands, or going out into the country?

I don't think most people realize what its like to be free from thinking about the material side of life. And when you break away from it, you realize how easy life really is. How things that were once such a big deal in your daily life really have no sort of impact at all on you or the rest of the world.

If only the general public of these major societies could realize these things, we might be able to remove some of the very large problems facing our world (Environmentally, Politically and Socially).




-Sean

[black magick hustla]

I will choose B, hell yes.

I am not a spiritualist, I am a materialist. I like comfort and hot food, and I could fund the leftist cause.

[Vallegrande]

A hundred million is pennies to Bill Gates. And besides, time decreases the value of money. So I would choose life, cuz what is a hundred mill worth when the world is turned to shit?