Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
We might be created equal, but there is definitely a class system here. Now, people can freely move up and down, but the rich don't want to bring the poor up to their level if they haven't don't anything in their lives. What's the point in becoming rich if there is no improvement in your life?
There is also still underlinings of racism, ageism, sexism, and a bunch of other differences that complicate things.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but it will be a really tough sell. I think there will be a bunch of people that would say, even though this is better for me, since it is better for other people, I don't want it. We are very competitive here going after limited resources of money, material items, and attractive girls. Things that might make it easier for the next guy aren't supported sometimes.
|
Existing within a system, arguing it cannot be changed, despite alternative systems existing and flourishing in the world.
The only way people have EVER forced up standards for the majority in education, healthcare and living standards is by FORCING those who exist in a social or economic strata 'above' them to share in common services.
Hence, almost 100% public healthcare is good. 70-80% is bad (the middle and upper classes are allowed to abdicate)
Same for education. (Finland versus the UK for example) Same for all services.
When the wealthy share the services of the poor, they are well funded and deliver excellence. when the wealthy are allowed to opt out of the services offered to the poor, those services for the poor become poorly funded and deliver sub-excellence.
Yes. The wealthy should deliver excellence in education, healthcare and social provision to all, just as they do for their own.
On the subject of technical/economic viability. You'll be amazed what is possible once outright greed, oligarchy and gradient are eliminated.