: What do we need to do? Exactly the same as when someone who once lived near a convientient bus stop finds the routes been moved, we just change the basis of the system, removing their privellege outright, and they have to alter their choices from there on in. And you are ducking, badly.
No your missing the point, the bustops are not your to move. To move them you have to get in on them and fiddle about. The parents resist, the babies are the ones who have to adjust to getting less, but you will have to be their agent of change.
: Why should we have to Overcome all those people?
Because theyre far richers than 'rich' people in Chad, Ethiopia, Laos etc. Unles you 'stagger' the evening out of access to stuff over many years the initial experience for the 2 billion better off people will be a drop.
: And babies cry, thats their job, our job is to see justice done, they'll get over it. We cannot rationally discuss the world from a babies eye view.
boo hoo. its fun to try, but yes.
: The humans who need it.
Including parents who want to defend their 'privilage'?
: No, but the difference is that the Ethiopians, with access to resources provided by us, will be able to develop quickly to be able to equal those resopurces. Since we've abolished money, what're we gonna do, move the school buildings?
At least you accept that equality is not going to happen. And that the 2 billion above must first experience downturn in supplying said resources.
: Its logical absurdity, more like. However, since children are dying of poverty, is it authoritarian to prevent that murder, by changing the economic system. You've accepted that economic systems are the result of human agency, thus it is murder, not accident.
Is murder digging a hole in your garden into which a person falls 30 years later? Very Very clear lines must be drawn lest everyone be made guilty of everything.
: And that privellege is possibly to go work there and help them use their resources to provide for them, to share access to necessary resources, and allow them to develop for themselves- once the inhibitting factor of the market is removed.
ever hopeful of changes in billions of peoples values and priorities.
: He didn't find it, it was, as with an economic system or a bus route, just left near him, and Kid two has a point, why doesn't he have what their sibling has?
He didnt have the accident of being near it. what should he do, just take it anyway? Where does this lead - an argument of what happens with one person who finds land? its doesnt seemt to fit for poeple born into things.
: No, they get a vote, we just out-vote them.
No principles just sheer subjectivism and 'might makes right'. seems a risky venture, might not last. Still, its not such a big change over human history.
: No, just an overwhelming majority, I won't put a figure on it, because someone always goes, but what about when n -1% support you? It'll be an overwhelming majority.
51% overwhelms 49%, just not as much as 90%.
: Well, if they ahd equal access to resources, then thats fair, and just, but if one parent is poor
The you accept that as families develop then some might go a few generations 'breeding' superior stock (thouigh Id sound all upper class a mo') with very inegalitarian outcomes?
: No, because production is geared:
1:To high profit.
They'll take a small margin believe me.
2:Towards them as have billions of dollars.
They'll be happy to increase such with 1% of $100billion
Not the systems 'fault' specifically, but in peoples comparative values of their choices.