[MD] freedom is for the rich

[Micah]

Steve H,

By what right are people owed a living? Who supplies that living? Is the
supply of that living forced?

Gav is mistaken about capitalism, it is about individual freedom - anything
less is a form of slavery - like your proposal. Capitalism depends on
individual freedom to trade in the marketplace, nothing more or less. It's
quite simple. Are you against your individual freedom? Or just others?

Micah



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Stephen Hannon
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 12:31 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] freedom is for the rich


[Steve H previously in another thread]
I think we can all agree that some people in the world are extremely
rich, while others suffer in extreme poverty.  I think the original
point to this thread was:

Does capitalism require that some people suffer in such extreme poverty?
If it doesn't than why do some people suffer in extreme poverty?

[gav]
under capitalism only a small percentage of people are
ever going to be rich and therefore free. their wealth
depends on the relative poverty of most. their wealth
is generated from the labour of the poor. this is a
law of capitalism.

[Steve H]
Exactly.  But what is poverty exactly?  I tried to clarify myself in
that thread but seemed to have failed.  Do we define it as living
"below the poverty line"?  At what level do we draw that line?  It
seems like even if we (as a society) defined a poverty line and
succeded in providing every family in the world with enough to live
over that line, inflation would simply raise prices and force a
redefinition of the poverty line.

As a society we seem to be stuck in capitalism.  Hmmm, stuckness.
Sounds like a gumption trap :-)  I think we need to figure out as a
society what is our goal with an economic system.  Do we want maximum
individual freedom only (egoism) or do we want a lot of individual
freedom but still help others in emergencies (unitarian)?  I would go
vote the unitarian side but then how do we define emergencies?

I mention Peter Singer and his book "One World: The Ethics of
Globalization" in the other post.  He is also unitarian.  Has anyone
heard of it?  Also, these issues don't necessarily have to be
discussed on a global scale.  As Case said, we have povery-stricken
people right in our towns and cities too (Singer makes a case that
proximity should play a role in whom we help).

Some thoughts,
Steve H

>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/