So last night in chat (or early this morning, depending on what hemisphere you're in) edk asked some of us "what do you think would have to be sacrificed in order to eliminate poverty?" He and I_Blas and I had a fairly interesting discussion about it, so I thought I'd pose the question to you all.

Personally, I think eliminating poverty would only come with the price of freedom. I think you'd have to have someone at the top distributing everything in order to make sure everyone had a certain amount - and enforcing it. Even in our system where people have the option of welfare, people still live in poverty. Of course, I'm not socio-economic expert by any means - feel free to rip this apart as you choose, I'd just like to hear everyone's answers about it.

Meantime, I'm already late for kick off between the Skins and Panthers. Cheerio! Time for lunch and a good brew!

Communism was considered as an answer, and we know how that turned out. There may be means by which poverty may be eliminated, but human nature suggests it would be transient at best,

I should have mentioned that I said I don't think it can be eliminated, as communism obviously doesn't work.

(October 23, 2011 at 1:05 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: So last night in chat (or early this morning, depending on what hemisphere you're in) edk asked some of us "what do you think would have to be sacrificed in order to eliminate poverty?" He and I_Blas and I had a fairly interesting discussion about it, so I thought I'd pose the question to you all.

Absolute or relative poverty? There's a difference you see.

Well, the first thing I would point out is that poverty is automatically connected into the properties of capitalism. There are winners, and there are losers. The losers dwell in poverty.

The second thing I would point out is what measuring stone are you using to decide what poverty is? Is poverty being unable to eat? Is poverty not owning a microwave? Etc...

The third thing I would ask is why do you think freedom has to be foresaken to eradicate poverty?

(October 23, 2011 at 2:55 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Well, the first thing I would point out is that poverty is automatically connected into the properties of capitalism. There are winners, and there are losers. The losers dwell in poverty.

That's human nature and greed. And also, many of the "winners" are winners only because they were born into place, not through any merit.

So the "loser" aspect, however appealing, is a rather flawed conception perpetuated by idiots who like to imagine they can rise to the top and that poor people are poor by their own hand and fault (sometimes true, but the scale to which is drastically dwarfed by the reality that 1% owns a significant portion of all our wealth).

(October 23, 2011 at 2:55 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: The second thing I would point out is what measuring stone are you using to decide what poverty is? Is poverty being unable to eat? Is poverty not owning a microwave? Etc...

I would guess not meeting basic human rights and living conditions would qualify as poverty. Considering the Scandivian view, that would be food, housing, medical and internet access. The last is because the Swedes are swayed (as am I) by the argument that the internet is no longer a luxury, but a basic requirement to secure and extend any housing, job offers and pursuit.

(October 23, 2011 at 2:55 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: The third thing I would ask is why do you think freedom has to be foresaken to eradicate poverty?

Because there are many people who benefit directly from others being poor. To force without their consent some redistributing of their ill gotten gain would be forsaking freedom, their freedom (and potentially yours if you rise to the top).

Of course, the way I see it, you rise to the top, you have a fucking obligation to direct and enhance our environment. After all, you got there on the backs of others. It is one's duty.

Mind you, I am looking at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates as examples of Rich-People-Making-Things-Better.

(October 23, 2011 at 1:14 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I should have mentioned that I said I don't think it can be eliminated, as communism obviously doesn't work.

Well clearly capitalism doesn't work...or you wouldn't be posing the question of how to eliminate poverty.
The very nature of capitalism ensures poverty's existence, in that the few gain at the expense of the many, and right at the bottom of the heap is the third world.
So, to eliminate poverty, capitalism must change which it cannot, or be replaced by a system that removes the two extremes of excessive wealth and extreme poverty.
I favour the socialist alternative until such time as someone can offer something better.

ultimately I would say that, bare bones basic, poverty is not being able to feed yourself the minimum required nourishment

with that said, I will gladly point out that there are storehouses full of grains and vegetables, and meat all over the world.

that food is just sitting there waiting to be bought for PROFIT to make a very small amount of people, like those in control of PERDUE (http://www.perdueagribusiness.com/), rich beyond normal human consumption.

Meanwhile, people starve and suffer from malnutrition across the world.

My species is a greedy, heartless and hopeless species who enjoys standing on the backs of others to act like gods.

(October 23, 2011 at 4:38 pm)bozo Wrote:

(October 23, 2011 at 1:14 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I should have mentioned that I said I don't think it can be eliminated, as communism obviously doesn't work.

Well clearly capitalism doesn't work...or you wouldn't be posing the question of how to eliminate poverty.

Capitalism doesn't work (how do you know?), therefore communism must!

To be more (or less) specific, edk didn't specify which when he asked the question. We just sort of ran with it, so argue whatever you like.

Moros got my view more or less in his explanation.