... issues and tissues with a touch of the spicy from the spirit hag ...
(i know this is idealistic. pathetic, even. i tried not to write it. no laughing !)
Published on May 30, 2004 By mignuna In Philosophy

imagine for a moment a maximum standard of living.

(warning: idealism ahead. please don't call me a silly woman).

a concept of private wealth in excess of a certain amount being removed from the individual/s in possession of it and redistributed “as needed”.


how would one go about placing people who are very different into the same material position ?.

by treating them unequally, of course. that is the western way.


... assuming that one could ever overcome the barriers to setting a “standard” – even the most basic of unpowered shelters and adequate food is richness to some.

(so, who defines “need” ?)


... assuming that you could find an honest system of distribution and place it under the control of individuals who fairly and honestly administer that system and provide for themselves only fairly

(so, who controls the controllers ?)


... assuming that this world economy would be likely driven by the western world, this “wealth re-distribution” effort would take the form of our traditional (so-called) “socially responsible” actions, i.e.: we traditionally take a “disadvantaged” or “discriminated against” group and "assist" them by either inventing laws regarding their treatment, or funding welfare aid to help their living needs.


any attempt to create a “planned economy” would mean a shift away from the “welfare” mentality and a moving towards true material equality.

to share only what you can spare is not noble.

a planned economy means a move away from “saving” or “helping” societal groups in need in favour of providing what is needed for each situation.


yet, a move away from all economic inequality would also result in revoking the basic right of each individual to pursue his own ends and follow his own dreams past a certain point. it would in fact remove many significant personal liberties from our western lives ... expensive travel, luxury foods and private study, just for starters.


it bears a thought when we seek “equality” what this basic yet major difference would actually mean to our everyday lives, and whether in this light it truly is the solution some spout it to be.


still, we’re very safe saying we want it ...’cause let's face it ... there’s just no way it’s ever going to happen if it gets left to us, right ?



Comments
on May 30, 2004
You make very good points.
"No man can draw the line between neccessities and luxuries. Only angels can do that, and the angels are wise and wistful. Perhaps the angels are our better thoughts in space. ~Kahlil Gibran



on May 30, 2004
"still, we’re very safe saying we want it ...’cause let's face it ... there’s just no way it’s ever going to happen if it gets left to us, right ?"

Right. I think that we can't get it around our head that for the betterment of our species we are going to have to establish and economy of suffering. We are going to have to ease the suffering the others by suffering a little ourselves.

What we have to establish is an acceptable average of suffering. This could be more important than determining a minimum or maximum standard of living, even though it could approximately mean the same thing...approximately.

We have to tweek things to the point where everyone, due to their material conditions, suffers equally. An equality of suffering.

We need to share it around.

Marco XX
on May 30, 2004
I have written something before about a one world theory on how to unite the government which I think would need to happen first before we could implement a concept like this here is the link if you're interested mig Link <---------shameless plug
on May 31, 2004
wisefawn, kahlil gibran's work is much beloved to me ... i'm so glad to see you like him also.

marco,
We have to tweek things to the point where everyone, due to their material conditions, suffers equally. An equality of suffering


yeah !. marco, you understand me. you're a gift.

psychx, your plug is excused on the grounds of it's relevance to the subject . i'll read it soon as i can.

mig XX
on May 31, 2004
I think this is the basis of what a utopian Communist society would be. The reason why Communism will never work is because there is always going to be someone better at the top pulling the strings.

-- B
on May 31, 2004
I think this is the basis of what a utopian Communist society would be.


if there could ever be such a thing, yes.

and i also agree, mr frog, that there will always be somebody pulling the strings. the metaphorical chopping-off of one "leader head" would only cause the growth of another in its' place.

as a note, to be honest, this article needed to be longer and better expanded, too.

but i depressed myself so much with my peristent idealism/stupidity that i lost all inspiration, and then i went ahead and spat it out anyway.

i hate it when that happens. hehe

mig XX
on May 31, 2004
We can dream right Miggy?

'deserved' can be a very loose term right?

BAM!!!
on May 31, 2004
We can dream right Miggy?


we have an obligation to ourselves to keep dreaming, muggie

mig XX
on May 31, 2004

For the world to accept a socialist-type society and equal social economic status many things come to mind that have to change.  Each individual would have to be similarly educated, or as far as intelligence we would need to all be near the same level for all of us to be self-sufficient.  This involves an "evolving" of sorts of the way we currently think with the eventual diminishing of prejudism and desire to be in a higher position than our brethren.  Pride itself would be directly impacted and the positive attributes of capitalism, I fear, may have to be left behind to establish a new world.  Culture itself would have to become coalesced or collectively, beliefs would have to be similar.  Technology itself could be the catalyst as the advancement of certain things like robotics and nano-technology could improve the quality of life for all on Earth.  Through this shared system maybe one day I will not think of a world with borders but as all men (and women) as my fellow citizens.

p.s. as usual I like your title.

on Jun 01, 2004
psychx, i agree. in otherwords, we'd need to undo almost all the "good work" and "progress" that we have made in the name of "advancing humanity".

in particular, (sadly), of all the reasons you give for the difficulty of implementing the "equality system", pride is the only one that seems genuinely impossible to overcome.

ps: as usual, i like your comment

mig XX