- independent I’ll keep this short for the moment but the problem here is can someone choose to whom they are born? The chances to achieve a good life are a lot greater for someone born into a rich family than someone born into poverty. So the greatest possibility of gaining a good life is down pure and simply to luck. The advantages of being born into a higher social class are many – greater educational possibilities, better social environment, better connections etc, the list goes on. To a very large extent people are not in ‘heaven or hell’ because they made the effort or choose to be their but because of an accident of birth. This means that a lot of human potential is being lost because of wealth based inequality that could realised by a better distribution of resources. *
This is a bullshit statement..... There are not enough wealthy people to make the hundreds of billions in profits for the oil companies, their profits are dependent on the poor and middle class buying their product. So, who is dependent on whom? .
Obviously one can not choose to whom they are born. Then why not make it a crime for the poor to bear children? Are all persons who are wealthy offspring of wealthy parents? If so that might prove your point, but how might you explain the persons who started with nothing and became wealthy? Just thieves I suppose? You can either accept the fact that you were the recipient of the short straw at birth and accept that as the determinant of a failed life or instead set out to achieve the luck you feel you deserve, or perhaps feel "entitled" to. While there exists many advantages in life, to dwell on what you feel are disadvantages doesn't produce any advantages. Create your own advantages, the human mind is the greatest resource each of us possesses, if put to use. Each of us has one and when used properly it can benefit us greatly, not to mention benefit to others as a side product. If you are content to accept birth as the determining factor of your resultant life, then what value might you offer to the society you expect to support you? You already have judged yourself to be a failure as a result of bad luck. If potential exists, then put it to use. It's effort not luck that leads to success in life, and admittedly that is still not a guarantee, but is indeed a fact.
Simply make the wealthy poor by refusing to buy their product. Ride a bicycle, or drill your own oil well and refine it yourself. No one forces you to purchase anything in life, although government may soon begin doing so.
I'll show that food industry, I won't buy any more food. Did you think this statement through, or do you just like how it sounds? .
Are you trying to tell me that the food industry will seek you out if you fail to buy from them and force you to do so? How about telling us all just which businesses use force upon the consumers? And just how do they apply that force? I think perhaps it is you who should think your statement through.
Do you really expect that people who believe the grocery store's price for food is too high should not purchase it and die? Your whole idea of consumer choice breaks down at the point of necessities that we must purchase in order to live. .
Indie Your views are so incredibly simplistic, again you come across more as a petulant teenager who’s had very little contact with the real world rather than an experienced and educated adult. This is a real playground ‘na na da na na’ reply – Ooooh then why don’t you make it a crime for the poor to bear children then yeah – like you know are all persons who are wealthy offspring of wealthy parents, yeah well are they like - oh then they must be thieves then hey!!! Oh come on Indie. And then once more you’re off sprouting yet more slogans and the dogmas of you faith while refusing to answer any of the criticisms levelled at it. Because when looked at none of your slogans or dogma actually answers the question of advantage and disadvantage, you basically ignore it. You’re basically just saying that being disadvantaged isn’t a disadvantage, that through effort blah blah blah it can be overcome. That is extremely naïve and simplistic, and doesn’t answer the question it is just like someone telling a legless person that they haven’t got a mobility problem because if they made the effort they could crawl using their arms. It doesn’t matter how much brains someone has if the disadvantages encountered mean if cannot be used or used to its full potential. I’ve meet many intelligent people who were in lowly positions who would have benefited from the advantages of being born into a higher social class (greater educational possibilities, better social environment, better connections etc,). And I’ve also meet people in higher positions that are there only because they had the advantage of greater educational possibilities, better social environment, better connections etc. * Again you go for the simplistic and petulant answer over anything deeper, can you please find your inner adult? I mean – “drill your own oil well and refine it yourself” please oh please tell me you’re not serious?
You can always grow your own food, purchase only the less expensive products, shop at farmer co-ops. Who's responsibility is it to provide the necessities of life? Initially I would claim it should be your parents, but at some point most humans reach the age of maturity and begin to take responsibility for themselves.
I would say that in a democracy the elected government is entrusted with the responsibility to provide the conditions in which it is possible for people to gain access to the necessities of life. In other forms of government there is the possibility that those in control don’t really care what happens to those in the lesser orders or if they have access to the necessities of life, they can come to be looked on as just a resource to be exploited. * The thing is that an individual can only do so much and so it is better to join together to achieve more. It is possible to improve everyone’s lot through such things as free education so that an individual, who wouldn't be able to do it on their own, can gain the education that opens the possibility of gaining more than just the necessities of life. Or such things as unemployment benefit and healthcare to see an individual through a downturn or sickness that they couldn’t cope with as an individual so they are in a better position to contribute when things are better.
You are the one who made the statement that we can choose not to purchase products. In order to grow one's own food one must purchase or lease property on which to do that. I'm just trying to point out how absurd your statement is. .
While I do agree that there are some functions that are best achieved by pooling resources nationally, educational, military, and infrastructure funding and maintenance costs, there are many other areas that are most efficiently handled and best understood locally.
Indie Thing is that you still haven’t addressed the question of advantage and disadvantage, you basically seem to be ignoring it. You seem to be saying that being disadvantaged isn’t a disadvantage, that through effort it can be overcome. That seems extremely naïve and simplistic to me, and doesn’t answer the question it is just like someone telling a legless person that they haven’t got a mobility problem because if they made the effort they could crawl using their arms. It doesn’t matter how much brains someone has if the disadvantages encountered mean if cannot be used or used to its full potential. I’ve meet many intelligent people who were in lowly positions who would have benefited from the advantages of being born into a higher social class (greater educational possibilities, better social environment, better connections etc,). And I’ve also meet people in higher positions that are there only because they had the advantage of greater educational possibilities, better social environment, better connections etc.
Absurd because you may not have exercised foresight to do just that? It pays to think about the future. Or of course you can demand government to do that for you.
indie If its understood locally or nationally isn’t the issue it’s about disadvantage and what things can be done to realise people’s full potential. Thing is the impression I get from many of your statements is that your ideas would have the result of increasing disadvantage rather than diminishing it and you don’t seem able to defend you ideas from that charge.
Could you reword the question more concisely? It appears to cover a wide range of definitions presently. Advantaged or disadvantaged in what way?
Can you please explain what definitions you think it is presently defining, so that I can put it to you more precisely?
We have no information on this question. What is a good life? If you can define that then you may take meaningful statistical measurements. What is the matter with the life we are given? The idea that we can gain a good life is propaganda spun to create eager laborers. Conversely, class and social stratification are not overall advantageous for humanity. Heaven and hell are both perceptions of the same phenomena. These perceptions are not necessarily tied to financial status. However inequality is built into the monetary system.
Advantages and disadvantages, physical, mental, economic, education, family, and so on. Lets narrow it down a little, I don't care to write a book.
What is practical is in the end that which you practice. You must eat, breath, and sleep. You are not required to buy a damn thing. That you may not see yourself capable in this instance does not tell the truth about everyone.
