This was influenced by the thread about poverty I made in SG and by the fact I'm rather hammered.

What with all the money, resources, know-how and labour power held by the "modern" world it really wouldn't be all that hard to clothe, educate, feed and "fix" if you will all the grief stricken nations of the globe. So why haven't people done it? It's always seemed slightly baffling to me how people preach about human rights and aids, poverty and starvation etc when here in the "west" we have the means to live totally excessive lifestyles. From the minimum wage earning shelf stacker to the multi-billionaire warren buffets there's every ability to live in a greedy manner.

Obviously people don't have to give up their money and time, that's their right.

Let's say we took away that right and hopefully people with tons of cash, the modes of production just got togther and said to hell with it and we all plunged our collective efforts into helping the impoverished, do you think that afterwards the consequences on the economy would be too drastic to cope with? Would it outweigh the results?

Some owners/shareholders are really reaping the benefits of surplus value. Nobody really needs as much as some of these people have. With the whole focus on human rights thanks to China and the olympics, should it perhaps be mandatory for companies to be taxed on a certain amount of their profit so that it can be used in a global effort to help the less fortunate?

I obviously think so. What about you?

Right now, the nations of the world spend well in excess of $1 TRILLION a year trying to kill each other making war.

If we would all simply observe the suggestion from Jesus--"Do unto to others as you would have it done unto you"--and stop making war, start using the trillion bucks for humanitarian purposes, poverty and hunger and homelessness could be eliminated, and no one would pay any extra taxes.

This thread sounds like the perfect shallow post to be sniped at by all totse's beligerent know it alls. It's an awful shallow statement to suggest the "modern" people need to feed, clothe and care for the stupid retarded peoples of the world because there is a disparity.

You (OP) are spouting what is now known as Wilsonian rhetoric. Woodrow Wilson when he sent American troops to serve in WWI did not state he was doing so in order to protect American interests, but instead was sending troops to defend freedom and preserve democracy. He felt that a new world order could come about by this selfless act; one in which a united council of nations adhering to respect human rights and abide by the international law could come together and peacefully solve international and domestic disputes.

Your idea to tax corporations to feed hungry people is proposterous. Idle vagrants deserve what they have. The altruist acts on pity and a feeling of sorrow for other human beings. Why not do these poor retarded children help themselves? Judaism, Christianity, Greek philosophy, Islam and all great western ideas were sprung from war; the need to settle a conflict. Or as Machiavelli admired: men who can act are greater than men who can do nothing but say everything.

why the fuck should I care for them? What moral obligation do I have to care for them? Is it my fault that their governments fucked up?

You don't mention the word WEALTH.

Money and wealth are two different things but people get emotionally fixated on the money because that is visible in the transactions. But people work and spend their money on bullshit and don't turn it into wealth so they just run on a treadmill forever.

You don't hear any economists saying accounting should be mandatory in the schools.

You don't hear economists telling us that Americans have lost FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS on depreciation of automobiles since 1995. In fact the economists don't talk about consumer depreciation at all. How do we solve problems if people have to run as fast as they can just to stay in the same place?

DT

If you solved one set of problems, another would just crop up in it's place.

This was influenced by the thread about poverty I made in SG and by the fact I'm rather hammered.

What with all the money, resources, know-how and labour power held by the "modern" world it really wouldn't be all that hard to clothe, educate, feed and "fix" if you will all the grief stricken nations of the globe. So why haven't people done it? It's always seemed slightly baffling to me how people preach about human rights and aids, poverty and starvation etc when here in the "west" we have the means to live totally excessive lifestyles. From the minimum wage earning shelf stacker to the multi-billionaire warren buffets there's every ability to live in a greedy manner.

Obviously people don't have to give up their money and time, that's their right.

Let's say we took away that right and hopefully people with tons of cash, the modes of production just got togther and said to hell with it and we all plunged our collective efforts into helping the impoverished, do you think that afterwards the consequences on the economy would be too drastic to cope with? Would it outweigh the results?

Some owners/shareholders are really reaping the benefits of surplus value. Nobody really needs as much as some of these people have. With the whole focus on human rights thanks to China and the olympics, should it perhaps be mandatory for companies to be taxed on a certain amount of their profit so that it can be used in a global effort to help the less fortunate?

I obviously think so. What about you?

The reason people aren't willing to give money to poor and starving people is because its considered communism, which in the western world is another word for evil. But maybe the world would be better off living under a communist government, as long as it can stay free of corruption (which so far has failed).
Its the old argument of Capitalism vs. Communism.

The reason people aren't willing to give money to poor and starving people is because its considered communism, which in the western world is another word for evil. But maybe the world would be better off living under a communist government, as long as it can stay free of corruption (which so far has failed).
Its the old argument of Capitalism vs. Communism.

...or perhaps it's not. Communism has too much social stigma attached to it. A Communist government?

"Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general."

I'm not going to bother linking to anything, however, the mere notion of money, government, etc in a communist society is laughable.