fightin poverty
when Organizations form in order to fight poverty, how can this be done? if poverty was to end then what would we call it? there's always a bottom and there's always a top. how do people become poor? and how or why are some born in poverty/poor?
if we all agree that for every cause there's an effect. what causes poverty, and what causes wealth?
wealth in all forms is caused by man's mind
Poverty can be intentional or unintentional. Intentional poverty is caused by one's own will, unintentional poverty is caused by external factors that restrict one's freedom directly or indirectly.
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]um well if poverty were ended on a global scale then capitalism couldn't exist. The only real solution to fighting poverty is fighting capitalism.[/FONT]
If I line up three ducks, they are all beside each other. There distances can be equal from one another. I can give each a piece of bread.
How exactly is there "always" inequality. My friend Jim is shorter than me. Am I better than him because of my height? "Better" is a construction. Even intellect can be undesirable. An organism that needs the nutrients to sustain a high intelligent will find survival difficult in harsh conditions over, say, a more sustainable organism.
The only legitimate criticism I've encountered of leftist philosophy is Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. The two that stand out are the following:
1. If people are willing to give some more for a service, say the benefits of their intellect or talent, what is to be done. Either the person is forced to give others the fruits of their labor for no individual gain, or individuals can enter into free contracts.
There are problems I have with this. Firstly, I think capitalism creates a situation where people will pay more for services because of talent. In a well structured society, I think unequal deals would be less common. Secondly, I think if morality does apply, the individual has just as much obligation to deal with others fairly as they have to treat him fairly. Therefore, either he would willingly make fair deals, or they would force him to do so. If either situation is not the case, morality is no longer applying. If morality doesn't apply, it's foolish to assume others will be moral according to whatever standard you impose (aka the capitalist standard for exploitation by against theft). To make it more clear:
Fair Unfair
Capitalist: 8/8 10/4
Communist: 10/4 4/4
Capitalist society seems to fluctuate between game theory exploitation and gain theory minimal gains. Over the short term, people will bicker and continue such behavior. In the long term, I think they will realize that in the long-run, a principle of continually fair relations benefits everyone.
2. If I was on an island, and I acquired my wealth without assistance, Nozick suggests I should have no obligation to share it with others. If a group of strange immigrants enters my land, whom I had no awareness of prior, I should share with them.
Here I would say someone who feels I should not simply has a lazy and convenient, "capitalist" notion of morality. Therefore, they would likely steal from others or "employ," as they like to call it, creating a system of injustices.
If someone refuses to give you aid, when they are clearly capable, you can assume something about their character. Upon that assumption, I think it is wise to limited their exchange capability and power. The effective means is to appropriate their assets.
I don't think there exist some sort of independent pacifist yet immoral being that simply wants to live alone, not care about others at all, yet feels morally obligated not to exploit them. Maybe a hermit. But communists can clearly tell the difference between a hermit and someone in a situation of vast wealth, likely acquired by exploitation.
If humans now encountered a society apart from our own, we would have an obligation to assist them so long as we are not significantly put aback by such efforts. What constitutes "significantly" is really what should be debated, not whether we have an obligation to help, as the capitalist suggests.
Haha, what a great question for a cappie to ask.
Quote:
when Organizations form in order to fight poverty, how can this be done? if poverty was to end then what would we call it? there's always a bottom and there's always a top. how do people become poor? and how or why are some born in poverty/poor?
if we all agree that for every cause there's an effect. what causes poverty, and what causes wealth?
First off, there won't always be a top and a bottom. Classes only exist as a result of Capitalism. The nature of Capitalism requires there to be a class system in order to push production. It's simple: the poor work for the wealthy to produce goods in which they sell in order to get more money to buy the products they need to produce more of the good they're producing. This continious cycle leads to the upper class selling more and making more money. So to answer your questions, we fight poverty by fighting Capitalism. Also, many people become poor later in life if they're brought up in a poor family. Being from a poor family they're denied many of the opportunities wealthy people of the same age would get. Why? Because the wealthy can buy their way into better education(which often leads to better jobs) and are often helped out by parents to get started in a business or whatever they decide to do. Also, it has been proven that many children growing up in poverty miss some important stages of development since they're not being as well nourished and can't afford many of the social activities that are around such as team sports. It's a vicious cycle really.
Quote:
If I line up three ducks, they are all beside each other. There distances can be equal from one another. I can give each a piece of bread.
How exactly is there "always" inequality. My friend Jim is shorter than me. Am I better than him because of my height? "Better" is a construction. Even intellect can be undesirable. An organism that needs the nutrients to sustain a high intelligent will find survival difficult in harsh conditions over, say, a more sustainable organism.
The only legitimate criticism I've encountered of leftist philosophy is Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. The two that stand out are the following:
1. If people are willing to give some more for a service, say the benefits of their intellect or talent, what is to be done. Either the person is forced to give others the fruits of their labor for no individual gain, or individuals can enter into free contracts.
There are problems I have with this. Firstly, I think capitalism creates a situation where people will pay more for services because of talent. In a well structured society, I think unequal deals would be less common. Secondly, I think if morality does apply, the individual has just as much obligation to deal with others fairly as they have to treat him fairly. Therefore, either he would willingly make fair deals, or they would force him to do so. If either situation is not the case, morality is no longer applying. If morality doesn't apply, it's foolish to assume others will be moral according to whatever standard you impose (aka the capitalist standard for exploitation by against theft). To make it more clear:
Fair Unfair
Capitalist: 8/8 10/4
Communist: 10/4 4/4
Capitalist society seems to fluctuate between game theory exploitation and gain theory minimal gains. Over the short term, people will bicker and continue such behavior. In the long term, I think they will realize that in the long-run, a principle of continually fair relations benefits everyone.
2. If I was on an island, and I acquired my wealth without assistance, Nozick suggests I should have no obligation to share it with others. If a group of strange immigrants enters my land, whom I had no awareness of prior, I should share with them.
Here I would say someone who feels I should not simply has a lazy and convenient, "capitalist" notion of morality. Therefore, they would likely steal from others or "employ," as they like to call it, creating a system of injustices.
If someone refuses to give you aid, when they are clearly capable, you can assume something about their character. Upon that assumption, I think it is wise to limited their exchange capability and power. The effective means is to appropriate their assets.
I don't think there exist some sort of independent pacifist yet immoral being that simply wants to live alone, not care about others at all, yet feels morally obligated not to exploit them. Maybe a hermit. But communists can clearly tell the difference between a hermit and someone in a situation of vast wealth, likely acquired by exploitation.
If humans now encountered a society apart from our own, we would have an obligation to assist them so long as we are not significantly put aback by such efforts. What constitutes "significantly" is really what should be debated, not whether we have an obligation to help, as the capitalist suggests.
Anarchy, State, and Utopia is interesting, but it operates on a couple of flawed premises derived from Kantian ethical philosophy. His theories about free exchange also presuppose a money-based economy and that non-capitalist economic systems merely wish to distribute wealth differently, when in fact they wish to destroy "wealth" as such altogether.