It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The world would be more fair if the homeless ruled rather than rich politicians

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 11:01 AM
a reply to: arpgme

Politicians are basically beggars. I would argue that there is no differences between politicians and those that beg for alms. Both live off the people.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 11:28 AM

originally posted by: arpgme
Who knows about discrimination more than the homeless who get bullied and beat up?

Who knows more about injustice than the homeless who are treated as a lesser human being just for being poor?

Who is more kind than those who humble themselves before all others asking for their help?

The homeless has the right perspective to make sure that things stay with equality and justice. They actually experience the worst suffering, embarrassment, and humiliation by society.

But it seems people would rather want charismatic, attractive, rich politicians who speak with clear word pronunciation and expensive suits and has never been poor and seen what it's like on the 'other side' rather than just the 'rich/middle class' side.

Power corrupts.

This idea that a homless person would be best to rule is about as insane as all Muslims are terrorists.

In my opinion its such an ignorant generalizationon both sides, the homeless would be better leaders and it seems people want charasmatic rich and nice suits to rule.

Remeber power corrupts the ego that rules over our minds.

Those that have less ego or have let go have no interest in politics or ruling over another.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 11:34 AM
a reply to: arpgme

The homeless are homeless. If they were leaders, they wouldn't be homeless. Saying that homeless people would make better leaders is like saying the fastest runner in hte world would make a good soccer player by running ahead and scoring goals. You're taking people in one situation and trying to argue they'll keep all the good traits they have in a completely different situation, while still miraculously acquiring all the other traits they need to be effective in that different situation.

It may be that virtually all people are "good" people when they're homeless, but the world isn't made productive because of homeless people. It's made productive because of people who work and strive and lead and innovate and reproduce and so forth. I've heard the phrase "Power corrupts." Well, perhaps it does. Maybe anyone in a position of power will expose their weaknesses when compared to a homeless person, just as when you compare the comparatively slow runner on a soccer field to the fastest runner in the world.

I once saw conjoined twins say they felt other people could learn from them because they've learned to peacefully live with each other in extreme circumstances. The problem is being conjoined twins and coping with extreme proximity to another person attached to you is not the same thing as people living peacefully in the world on a global scale. They're two different things and an equivalency analysis is very very difficult.

I've also heard growing up in poverty is good. I've heard that people who struggle and grow up surviving become the most successful people. The problem with this argument is it's the same flawed one you're using. The facts are poor people usually do not get a college degree. It's extremely hard for a poor person to rise above their status and become wealthy. The vast majority simply do not. They can barely even navigate modern life.

And yet people will persist in believing being poor improves a person's character and makes them better off. To say that the people of our world would be better if there was an apocalypse that'd put us all in extreme painful circumstances is not just stupid but it's dangerously stupid. The result of an apocalypse will bring the opposite of what people like this think it will. It'll bring back all the horrors of our past and in the developing world: plague, disease, dictatorship, religious fanaticism, high infant mortality, etc. Through struggle and perseverance we would (hopefully) recover and there would be many good people, but to say all of that destruction makes us better is like saying having your family murdered makes you stronger. It very well may make you stronger in some ways, but that's like appreciating your arms more because one was lost in an accident.

What I'm saying is we should compare ACTUAL leaders to each other, as opposed to comparing apples to oranges. Find a leader who led by applying polices you feel are right. Compare to leaders who don't apply those policies. Because this is the only real way we can make comparisons.
edit on 29-6-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:05 PM
a reply to: guidetube

I agree.

It is sad that those who want to seek election deserve leadership the least, and those who deserve it the most do not seek election.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 11:31 PM

originally posted by: FreedomEntered
Not a narrow view and not a myth I see them constantly out of their head rambling to themselves on the street. Nothing admirable about that . They should rule over nothing other than their own lives first.

Those who weren't in that position that way. They still don't deserve to rule because they are only humans, Yes humans fall on hard times that doesn't make them potentially better rulers. They may become corrupt as many politicians do.

They are no better than anyone else.

No one deserves to rule for merely being human, and a homeless person shouldn't be elected simply because he's homeless. But I certainly agree that when considering two otherwise equal candidates with equal experience, but one had the benefit of a privileged upbringing and the other faced real-world adversity like homelessness, I would always choose the candidate who had been homeless. Again, that was part of President Obama's appeal, that his childhood was more comparable to the Everyman's than say, Clinton or McCain. The idea being that because he didn't grow up ultra privileged, he would truly understand what lower- and middle-class people needed. That doesn't mean we should elect someone whose only credentials are his hard life experiences. As we've seen, merely coming from a humble background does not a good president make.

But yes, it is a myth that all homeless people are drug addicts, ex-cons or crazy people. Around here, the majority of our homeless population is comprised of veterans, people who gave everything for their country and came home to nothing through no fault of their own. There is a much larger homeless population that you DON'T see: families who were victims of a tanked economy, young students struggling to put themselves through college, teenagers abandoned by their parents for selfish reasons..... the list goes on. I bet if you looked a little closer and asked some of those people WHY they were homeless, you would be utterly shocked by the responses.

In any event, typecasting all homeless people as crazy or criminal does nothing to help the situation and in fact only reinforces that they are somehow less than human and therefore undeserving of anyone's help. Being human might not entitle you to lead the country, but it does entitle you to the most basic rights and needs.

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 03:52 AM
The most balanced suggestion has already been stated in this thread:

Take away the money and the perks.

Obviously not ALL of the money, but why couldn't a career politician make say, 100 k per year? They would live a perfectly fine life with that income, you know, since they are supposed to work "for the people" and are elected "by the people". Moreover, you would see a person with a MUCH different mindset, seeking out a political role, would the salary change to merely an average one.

As for the perks, why are they necessary at all? In this age of technology with Skype and the like, are ALL of these trips/paid vacations truly needed? Should they receive a giant pension paid for by your taxes? Should their gas be paid for by the taxpayer, when the taxpayers themselves are left to the absorb those volatile fluctuations out of their own pockets? Should they be able to write off business luncheons, while people in their country starve? Brown bagging it never hurt anyone, just saying.

Also, no one should have backers or sponsors for their "campaigns". Either all parties come to the table with the same amount, or they all have nothing, and must campaign via social media. Oh and no "sending any digs" towards the other guy's campaign - let's demand some honor, integrity and actual debate - instead of cheapening something as important as the running of the country with childish mud slinging.


Just picture it: A group of like-minded people, desiring to work for the betterment of the country, knowing full well what it's like to subsist on an average wage...they would very likely come together more often in a spirit of true co-operation, instead of arguing to push their individual agendas and serving their corporate masters.

While not a perfect solution, it surely beats what we have now. This way you might actually get that "average Joe or Jill" to run for office...because they CARE.
edit on 2-7-2014 by MoonBlossom because: More Words...

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in