Poor by US standards, actually. My family had to get a computer for educational reasons. I’d quite like to give to the even less fortunate, but I don’t have much to give. What we can give, we do, when we can.</p>
<p>I am more concerned with the millionaires who have far too much, who live in decadence, who have no right to what they hold. I know you don’t have enough compassion for the poor, but I do.</p>
<p>
There have been no communist countries in human history.</p>
<p>
It sure is a good thing the wealthy can be secure in the knowledge that no powerful country has ever been brought down by revolution.</p>
<p>
Except that that is a lie, and every once in a while things get bad enough for enough people to realize it.</p>
<p>Actually, according to a 2009 Rasmussen Reports poll, “adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37 percent prefer capitalism, 33 percent socialism, and 30 percent are undecided.”</p>
<p>Of course communism isn’t currently favored; that’s why it must catch fire with the population first. But what is now is not what always will be.</p>
<p>
You have an absolutely horrid understanding of communism. Those countries are not and never were communist; that is merely propaganda. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was as socialist as it was made up of republics; the People’s Republic of China was as communist as it is a people’s republic; Glorious Leader Kim Jong Il is as Marxist as he is a glorious leader. Why do you buy into some of the dictators’ propaganda, but not the rest of it?</p>
<p>Giving people money doesn’t actually make them happier in the long term. It gives them an initial spike in happiness just like a hug or some other kind act would, but that’s it. So the argument for distributing wealth can’t be based on the fact that the people in extreme poverty are suffering because a) they are not suffering anymore than the wealthy are, and b) if they were, well, money wouldn’t do that much to help them.</p>
<p>The reason why I object to poverty is because of all the potential that goes unrealized because of it. How people have to devote their whole lives to surviving, and have no time to do anything else; I think that is sad because some of those people have the ability to do much more than that.</p>
<p>The goal of communism isn’t to just take all the money and to give it to people, it’s to create a world-wide workers’ republic in which all humanity works together to a common goal, where all work goes to benefit humanity.</p>
<p>
So people starving to death aren’t less happy than the rich because rich people can be sad too? And giving them enough to survive wouldn’t help them?</p>
<p>A) What goal might that be?
B) Why should humanity work together towards a common goal?
C) Do you realize the ultimate fate of humanity?
D) Are you a utilitarianist, you give that vibe with the statement ‘where all work goes to benefit humanity.’?</p>
Whatever humanity decides, though I have a few ideas. First, mobilize available work to build and renovate enough housing for everyone, to produce food through agriculture, to cover deserts with solar panels (covering 3% of the world’s desert in solar panels would produce enough for the whole world), and, when all of this is done, to direct all available labor and skills into the exploration and colonization of space, to ensure the continued survival of the human race.</p>
<p>
When it comes down to it, it is in the best interest of all to not waste energy opposing each other. Some things (adequate food, sustainable energy, survival of mankind) are in the best interest of all humanity. Other, more local projects would obviously be done on a local level, too.</p>
<p>
Death, eventually. But it would be nice to put that off for as long as possible.</p>
<p>
No; utilitarianism advocates torturing a child if it makes everyone else happier. I believe in moral imperatives.</p>
<p>Humanity isn’t a entity, it can’t decide. Thus, you’re going to resort to majority rule aren’t you? What if the majority don’t want to work towards a common goal? Right now the majority of westerners live in a life of luxury. According to various economic predictions, majority of the worlds should start to live in a life of luxury (i.e. beyond necessity) in the next 200-300 years. What happens then? I doubt most people would be willing to give up their wealth for the advancement of humanity and those less fortunate. Does this mean you aren’t doing it for the benefit of humanity anymore? Also, just because something is for the benefit of humanity doesn’t mean we ought to do it. Why do you think we ought to do something that benefit humanity? </p>
Majority would rule, but majority could not override human rights in such a system. I would be interested in the economics you are referring to, since the average US income is in the top 1% of the world and global class divides are growing, so it seems extremely unlikely that all trends will suddenly reverse and many more billions of people will start living in luxury.</p>
<p>
Why do I want humanity to survive? Because I believe that consciousness and sentience are good things and I do not wish for them to be extinguished; I value life and thus want as many potential humans to live and breathe and think and love as possible. Most humans feel the same way.</p>
<p>
Human rights, liberties, and equality. That everyone has the right to life, to self-determination, to their own labor, and to ultimate liberty where it does not infringe upon the rights of others. I know you do not share my views on life or suffering, as from the cat raping arguments, but it seems like most people have a concept of human rights.</p>
<p>I never said billions will start to suddenly leave a life of luxury. I said due to the economical prosperity of the emerging powerhouses (Brazil, China, India etc) we will see a rise in GDP per capita. It probably won’t be as high as the US but it will probably get to be around the level of Turkey (which still is a life of luxury). Look at the difference between India 2000 and India 2010. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You believe, okay. And I feel that’s only because of religion, the rise in atheism will mean a rise in existential nihilism. Are you basing your beliefs on your opinion and the majorities or some intrinsic value? I suspected the latter but you’re seem to be advocating the former. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, god I love that catchphrase. It’s as meaningful as Americas definition of freedom. What’s your definition of human rights, liberty and equality? And is it a objective definition or subjective definition?</p>
India in 2010 still has a rampant poverty problem, as do China and Brazil. GDP per capita matters little when most of it is concentrated in a few.</p>
<p>
With or without religion, I feel that humans have innate rights and dignity. I feel that it’s insulting to most atheists I know to assume that atheists would feel differently and not care about human rights; just because that’s how you are doesn’t mean that’s how everyone is. Thomas Jefferson was a deist, so he didn’t believe in a God with direct involvement, yet he laid out principles for human rights, as did many Enlightenment thinkers. Karl Marx actually though that religion stood in the way of a workers’ revolution (this was pre-Liberation Theology).</p>
<p>
The right to life and all things necessary for the continuation of life; the right to self-determination through a democratic government and economy; the right to protection against unnecessary pain; the principle that all humans are created equal and that none deserves to be treated better due to birth; the right to be free and do as you wish where it does not infringe upon the rights of others. It is objective in that I believe it applies to all humans across all times; it is subjective in that some others feel differently.</p>
<p>^^There isn’t a true freedom, but America is doing a good job in the freedom department. In case you didn’t know America is one of the freest countries in the world along with other Western European nations. </p>
<p>The smaller the country the high the GDP per capita is more likely to be. A country like China and India is not going to have a as high GDP unless they do something about their business practices and allow better business ethics in the country. </p>
<p>Communism will never work in this world EVER. Because power corrupts, their won’t be equality because government officials will have the most luxuries, it also leads to a lack of competition, lack of competition leads to a lack of innovation. We would move backwards and not forwards. Every attempt at communism has led to a dictatorship striping people’s natural rights.</p>
<p>Capitalism is a natural economic system. We humans compete with one another, this leads to innovation, determination and ambition. Communism is an easy way out for life. Work for what you want, not let the government hand it to me, that makes me not to want to try, I know I can still be lazy and make as much as a great life as a hard working doctor. That’s why capitalism is a far superior system in that it makes you work, you get rewarded for the sweet and tears you put. </p>
<p>I rather live in a capitalist society then a communist society. Communism looks nice on paper, but in action its a fail.</p>
<p>I ask, would the world be a better place if more people had my ideas about rights or if they had the ideas of Xenophanes?</p>
<p>
That’s a bold claim.</p>
<p>
Except there isn’t a government as they exist now, the workers in the government, regardless of position, receive the same as all other workers, and no one would be allowed to have more luxury than all others. Once it was established and stable like this, with a regular rotation of the workers in and out of government, things would be set up that way; the biggest risk is while it is being established.</p>
<p>
Really? According to what?</p>
<p>
All of humanity’s resources mobilized to common cause and scientific advance would cause us to move… backwards?</p>
<p>
There has been no real attempt at communism (a world system that is a workers’ republic). There have been movements calling themselves communist, countries who have used that as propaganda, but that doesn’t make it true.</p>
<p>
Funny, the closer humans are to the natural state, the more it looks like tribes are in primitive communism.</p>
<p>
Sheer capitalistic propaganda. The way of life for the top 0.1% of the world is likely better in capitalism; for the rest, communism would provide a better quality of life.</p>
<p>
Funny, one would usually need to see it in action to make such a claim.</p>
<p>Many people in poor countries starve because the government is corrupt. Instead of trying to change economic systems, these corrupt governments need to be removed.</p>
<p>Why are the governments corrupt? Because the leaders want power and wealth. Because there is a class divide and they want to be on the rich side, and they don’t give a **** if others are on the poor side.</p>
<p>To be honest, I feel that no form of government, economic system is going to work. There will always be that person who will seek power and gain it. There will always be poor people and wealthy people, life is not perfect nor will it ever be. We have to make with what we got and make the best of it. Life is unequal, communism, capitalism, and other ideal economic systems will not make more equality. </p>
<p>Billy, to tell you the truth I don’t like being a nihilist but it’s the most rational position I’ve seen. I hope you can prove me wrong and I can go back to being a human-right loving libertarian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Irrelevant. Your life savings on Monday is 1 cent. Your life saving on Friday is 1 dollars. Have you not dramatically increased your wealth? </p>
<p>Okay, that’s your definition. My definition of human rights includes the right to kill adulterers. What makes your one more right than my one? That’s the essence of my question.</p>
<p>^He’s talking about the whole country. India is still an extremely poor country when looked at the status of the people. They do work that Americans refuse to do, many are bought as slaves to work in sweetshop because their parents sold them. China is a poor country with a wealthy government, much like India. </p>
<p>Countries like Luxembourg and Switzerland have extremely high GDP per capita and the average person has a sustainably higher living standard than a person in India or China.</p>