Civil Liberties Or Equality

Communist_boy · November 20, 2003

Im doing up a paper for my political science class. The question is: It is more important for a society to provide the oppurtunity for individuals to become wealthy than to meet the basic needs of all it's people.

My question to the members of this forum is which one do you feel is more important?

If you could just tell me which one your for and then give a brief explanation of why you choose that one.

Thank you

Lost in Manitoba · November 20, 2003

Those two things need not be at odds. We hear a lot of people complaining of the rich not doing enough (which I agree with) but it is also important that we are just as hard on the poor people. For every sign out there that cries out against corporate greed, we need two that says 'Get a job you lazy bum'. We live in a compassionate society, or at least a society that does not want to be seen as uncompassionate. We are unwilling to say this guy can't afford medical, let him die. Or this guy is too lazy to work, let his kids starve. At the same time though, why should we support them? Is this not enabling them to continue their laziness? If we're talking programs to help people get education or training, so they can go on and get wealthy then sure I support that.

sir_springer · November 20, 2003

The question, IMHO, is loaded.

Both are attainable.

It is imperative that people have opportunity to become whatever it is that they think possible.

Communism's solution, in the simplest terms, is to make everyone equally poor, or IOW, to apply the same brush stroke to the lowest common denominator.

In nature, all things are relative. Poverty or oppulence are only relevant within the context of being compared to each other.

Black is only black relative to white. Up is only up relative to down. Light is only light relative to dark.

The key prerequisite to life is freedom of opportunity.

In nature, where opportunity exists, life flourishes. A seed can find roots in the most unlikeliest of environments, and thus manifest its potential.

In nature, some seeds will land where the opportunity for such is virtually nonexistant.

That is life.

God does not distinguish between the two, He merely provides the opportunity...without judgement of either, nor anything in between the two extremes.

Communism...i.e., socialism taken to its extreme...demonstrated that when opportunity is removed, life stagnates. And in stagnation, potential is diminished shockingly. Thus, we saw communism collapse into itself.

All the best that has been achieved by mankind, be it invention or charity, has been done so in an environment of freedom, not just of speech, religion, movement, etc., but specifically of enterprize.

Freedom includes both the right to succeed as well as the right to fail, and everything in between the two.

I believe in freedom, and I reject dogmatic encumbrance of freedoms. The Bill Gateses of this world have every bit as much right to be as does anything or anyone else.

And a thousand people oppressed of their freedom and opportunity will never do as much good for this world and the plight of mankind as will one potential Bill Gates or whomever of success and wealth.

Lost in Manitoba · November 21, 2003

Off Topic.

I had a friend email a little article from some magazine entitled "The last will and testement of Bill Gates", or something of the like. It was rather interesting. It was a speculation of who he has down in his will to inherit his fortune. The guy is richer than god and has proven himself to be quite the philanthropist. His personal and family connections seem to be limited, and why leave a fortune to a business? That leaves how many billions of dollars probably being donated to charity. Not wishing death on him or anything, but that's an amazing thought.

Schilly · November 21, 2003

Certainly a loaded question, really couldn't put it any better. I agree with the responses given so far.

SirRiff · November 21, 2003

At the same time though, why should we support them? Is this not enabling them to continue their laziness? If we're talking programs to help people get education or training, so they can go on and get wealthy then sure I support that.

Lost in Manitoba, i think any society that took that sort of hard line approach to thier needy would quickly find those people would be desperate enough to bring down the whole society. when a human being is hungry and desperate and hopeless, he is far more likely to act outside the bounds of the rest of civil society. just looking at the correlation between war and poverty should be a warning to us all. history if full of the weak being mobilized by poverty to desperate and destructive measures against their own people. a good metaphor would be: no matter how nice your house is, you are only as safe as your worst off neighbor.

to the original question...

It is more important for a society to provide the oppurtunity for individuals to become wealthy than to meet the basic needs of all it's people.

while a society that does neither will collapse, i think from a purely functional nonmoral view equality will breed a more stable society then raw capital accumulation. while competition is certain the machine of innovation and advancement, ruthless competition has many hidden social costs that are rarely discussed. what good is a new vaccine if large segments of poor are like to be diseased? will it be given for free? could the resources used for the drug have been used to prevent the spread of the disease in teh first place?

humans have a misery thresehold, and given enough misery like you see in africa, and to a lesser extent the middle east, we will revert to animal instinct and forgoe civilized thought. just the fringes of society who are desperate will drain the resources of the majority in trying to deal with them.

sirriff

Lost in Manitoba · November 21, 2003

I'm totally not saying that there shouldn't be social welfare programs. I for one am a believer of looking after my fellow man. What I am saying is that while the poor can expect us to help them, we in turn should be able to expect them to help themselves. The onus seems to be placed on the wealthy to have some heart and give more to the poor. More focus should be put on making the poor more accountable for their situation. If I, or anyone else, get injured, lose my job, or otherwise fall on hard times, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect help to get back on my feet. I don't think it reasonable, however, to take it for granted that I can sit on my ass and never work again. Many social programs are prone to this kind of abuse. I'm not sure of the state of it now, but I was a big fan of the Harris work for welfare program, as well as other welfare abuse hotlines. (I guess I could have cut all this short and said: Hand up, not hand out)

sir_springer · November 21, 2003

For example...

___________

Report: Bill Gates tops list of charitable givers

NEW YORK (Reuters) — Microsoft founder and chairman Bill Gates and his wife Melinda are the most generous charitable donors in America, Business Week magazine said on Thursday, as the couple gave away or pledged a staggering $23 billion — more than half of their net worth.

In the magazine's second-annual ranking of the top 50 philanthropists in the United States, the Gates' are worth a net $46 billion — the rough equivalent of Hungary's entire gross domestic product. With the couple's having donated 54% of their net worth, Business Week dubbed them "the reigning royalty of a new class of self-made superphilanthropists."

Gordon Moore, the co-founder of Intel, along with his wife Betty, came in a distant second with $7 billion given or pledged, the magazine said. Billionaire investor George Soros placed third, with $2.4 billion, or 68% of his net worth.

The magazine's rankings also included philanthropic stalwarts such as Ted Turner (at No.8), the founder of Cable News Network, a unit of Time Warner; New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at No.11; and Sanford Weill, the chairman of Citigroup Inc at No. 23.

Following is a listing of the top ten givers, according to Business Week, and the sopurces of their fortunes:

1. Bill and Melinda Gates, Microsoft cofounder

2. Gordon and Betty Moore, Intel co-founder

3. George Soros, investor

4. Eli and Edythe Broad, SunAmerica founder

5. James and Virginia Stowers, American Century founder

6. Michael and Susan Dell, Dell founder

7. The Walton family, heir to Wal-Mart fortune

8. Ted Turner, CNN founder

9. Ruth Lilly, Eli Lilly heiress

10. Donald Bren, real estate

______________________________________________

To put that amount into perspective:

Assuming a population in the US of 280,000,000...

To match that sort of charity, each and every man, woman, and child in the US would have to contribute $82 into the pot.

In Canada, this would equate to roughly $760 per person.

Now...

Where would that $23 billion have ended up were it not for a Bill Gates being allowed to be successful?

What is important about the Bill Gateses of this world is that they manifest what is possible, given opportunity.

And generally, such people in return manifest remarkable generosity to their fellow man.

Not to mention how one brilliant mind can totally alter the world, making it a better place for everyone else in ways untofore unimaginable.

For example...

The very fact that you are reading this particular post in the comfort of your office or home, partaking in an exchange of ideas, thoughts, and information potentially from around the world, and from people you would otherwise never have encountered...

Is testament to what is possible when the Bill Gateses et al of this world are given opportunity and freedom to express themselves, and manifest the seemingly impossible.

This is why free enterprize is the best system of social justice and freedom in the world.

Lost in Manitoba · November 21, 2003

Good Post Springer. I have to disagree though with the point 'And generally, such people in return manifest remarkable generosity to their fellow man.' I would think that these people are the exceptions, not the rule. Really good points though.