Lost Soul

On Poverty

The sole cause of poverty is the inflation of the human population. When people multiply faster than wealth can be created the end result will always be poverty. Furthermore, the planet cannot sustain billions of people for an extended period of time. We will run out of resources far sooner than we can advance the resources of other planets and extra-planetary bodies. If we continue to inflate at the current rate, future generations will be digging in garbage dumps as if they are gold mines. When they run out of garbage to mine, future generations will have nothing left at all and that will be the end of civilization, of our hard work, and of the achievements of all the enlightened minds of past generations of life.

All the hard work and toil we have exerted will have been for nothing. Every time a poor person has a child she or he has given birth to new poverty, pure and simple. The welfare system must be eliminated at all cost. This seems directly opposed to the ideals of individual liberty, however, liberty without responsibility is anarchy and chaos. So, until such time when we have a society worthy of liberty, capable and willing to be responsible for their actions and well being, if responsibility is ignored it will have to be imposed. Liberty is not for the animals or the savages as such will just trample it under foot. Entire article

Max

__________________
Press Release ::: Press Release ::: Penny Stocks Picks ::: Links Directory ::: Penny Stocks Picks ::: Reciprocal Links Directory ::: Links Directory

Pacifier

it that your article? if not, do you agree? waht is your opionion about it?
do you favour social darvinism? do you think this excuse from "the rich world" not to share is OK?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Lost Soul

I am an Objectivist and an elitist so yes, I agree with the artivle 100%

Forcing others to provide for someone else is unjust no matter how you look at it.

Max
.

__________________
Press Release ::: Press Release ::: Penny Stocks Picks ::: Links Directory ::: Penny Stocks Picks ::: Reciprocal Links Directory ::: Links Directory

Pacifier

but isn't the "small" man (or lower class) forced to consume in order to survive and therfore force to provide the big companies? how can you survive in a modern world without to work for and buy from the big companies (or elitists)? So is this system also unjust?

Why are we forming societies and even nation if not to provide shelter and help?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Bill O'Rights

To a degree, I'll go along with that. As a society, we have an obligation to assist those of us that have, for whatever reason, found themselves without the means to do so for themselves. However, I grow increasingly weary of subsidising generation after generation of professional couch potatoes, and breeding stock. There is no reason that you should be having additional dependents, when you obviously cannot provide for those that you already have. I call for an end to the "Welfare State". Any one of us can conceivably find him or herself in need of assistance. That assistance should have a definate date of expiration. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and move on. If you have reached this point in your life, then no job should be beneath you. I am more than willing to help you get back on your feet, but I am sick to death of supporting those that will not do so for themselves.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

aceventura3

I think your premise is wrong. Poverty is defined by the government. For example 100 years ago, if you had shelter, food, and clothing no one would say you were in poverty. Today people who not only have the above but also, TV's, cars, cell phones, DVD players, free medical care, free education, air-conditioned places to live, etc, etc, can be considered living in poverty.

I am not sure I agree that it is going to be that bad. I think people can change.

Pacifier

Of cource the ones who are exploiting the system (those professional couch potatoes) are a a problem, especially if the number reaches a certain limit. A healthy society can survive a vertain amount of those but there is, of course, a limit.

but I think that that would be too much, a decent, effective social system is important for a healthy society.


I must say I also wonder what kind of povetry Lost Soul is talking about, US povetry or world wide povetry. But then again it dosn't really matter since in both cases his view are false.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

meepa

I would put forth that this isn't always the case, because you can still have poverty with a small population with abundant resources. Often poverty is more a result of how well certain segments of whatever society can control the resources which are available.

Also, as someone else mentioned in the thread, poverty is one of those terms that you sort of need to define in order to really pin down your argument. Is poverty not being able to sustain your health? Or is it not having the common luxuries that the majority of those in your society already have?

It isn't necessarily about a lack of resources, but instead how those resources are distributed among the population. Often the established hold more resources than the 'poor' because it wants to, not because it needs to; ie there are certainly enough resources to go around if all aspects of the society decided to live in care-bear land and be more egalitarian.

To be fair, I didn't read the article, I just wanted to take issue with your opening premise which I decided was not an absolute truth, although in some cases it may apply.