It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: purplemer
Try going somewhere in any economy without a means of sustaining yourself.
You're gonna have a bad day.
You take a job. The worth of the job is based on the value of the labor and the better you are at it and the harder you work, the more you get paid based on your value as a laborer doing that job.
This is a rough draft ideology, tell me what you all think?
1.All 50 states would have to pass an amendment to limit them to only 2 terms.They will not do this themselves because of above listed reasons.
What people have in this life should be based upon their worth in society and the part they play in it
not based on how much they can con out of and take from others. It should be based on worth, not cons and corruption.
If you want society to contribute to your well being you're indebted to contribute to it's well being, no more no less.
If you don't want to contribute, don't expect it to contribute either. If you contribute enough, you build up enough contributions that society owes you. Until society has paid it's debt that is. It's give and take, this for that.
I've already covered I have no problem with people choosing to go off the grid and neither take nor give from society.
Addendum: "If, however, you're going to stay on the grid and take from society, tell me why society should help you when you give nothing back?
Where did the idea that you are expected to do your part to contribute to the well being of society which is supposed to work for the benefit of all amounts to the same thing as slavery?
We have fundamentally different opinions on what worth and value means. We'll just end up talking around each other and misrepresenting each other til the end of time. I don't wish to do that, so let's agree to disagree.
We also disagree on the immorality of funneling the majority of wealth into a infinitesimally small percentage of the population.
If one cannot see the basic truth of that immorality, discussion is basically dead there, as no amount of reasoning can be applied as it's clear they completely lack compassion for the majority of the world's population. So no argument where the majority of people have any worth is going to have any effect.
So I'm going to agree to disagree with you, before I end up losing it, because arguing for the wealth gap being anything but psychopathic is just really hard to stomach.