reply to post by The_Modulus
While I respect to your view, I can none the less disagree with you.
"This is largely the thrust of my argument, that solving these problems would not require any additional taxation from anyone. The money is floating
about in places such as war budgets etc. and the banking accounts of the greedy. "
You are stating to switch taxation from war, etc, to socialism. It is still taxation, you are having the rich pay to get the poor out of the
"Again, this is the second point I am trying to make. Humanity is essentially responsible to just that, humanity, first and foremostly, above and
beyond any artificial 'international' boundaries."
no humanity has never been responsible for humanity. We are not herbavores, we are omnivores. We consume everything. Throughout our history, stronger
civilizations have conquered and destroyed the week. That is the nature that is ingrained in us. While I would love to see rainbows, and fluffy
bunnies, in reality I see a thunderstorm on the horizon, and a rodent that overbreeds the environment. You are asking us to dehumanize ourselves in
order to accomplish our goals. Whether you consider it good or bad, it is the nature of us. we grow, we conquer, and we destroy. This is what we are,
this is what our nature is.
Your concepts are nothing more then the "city on the hill", the preconcepts of communism and socialism. It failed, will continue to fail, and will
always failed, because it doesn't factor in corruption, and our nature.
"That is a frightening comment. You seem to assume that people suffer for your own personal benefit? That essentially a large proportion of the
population should be slaves to the whim of another portion?
And again, if you were to read my post, you would realise that I do not propose lifting everyone to the living conditions of a first world nation, but
merely ending their completely unnecessary immediate suffering. "
I don't assume that people suffer for there own benefit. I assume they suffer for someone elses benefit. If we feed every african, or asian, the same
as they feed me, an american, I would starve. On the same token, if they feed them at all, prices of food would be through the roof. No, in any
situation there the haves, and have nots. Not everybody can be a "have" in order for you to have success, there must be the "have nots" and while
its unfortunate that people live, and die horrendously, if they did not, my life style, and the life style of every rich nation would change so
drastically, that your concepts would bring about war, destruction, and the very things you look to solve.
In order to accomplish what you want, there would need to be serious depopulation. What you propose isn't possible with 6 billion people. It would be
possible with our technology of today and say 500 million. That however sounds like a NWO conspiracy now doesn't it.
Like I said before though, I like your post, and its admirable, its just not feasible.
[edit on 18-10-2008 by camain]