Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2023 18:36:59 GMT
No
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 5, 2023 19:31:20 GMT
I just think that using computers should be outlawed because many people have been exploited by the industry that manufactures them. And you’d never be able to afford one IF those parts manufacturers and shippers were paid more fairly. OK, I don't know if in a socialist world whether the average person would be able to afford a computer. Perhaps they couldn't. In which case I would be worse off. But so what? The majority of the world as a whole would still be better off - we wouldn't have a huge chunks of the population labouring for privileged people in the first world to own a computer. Plus with Oprah, we're talking about someone who could afford tens of millions of computers if she wanted. If people like me and you are getting more than our fair share of the world's resources, it's nothing compared to the share Oprah gets. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 6, 2023 22:42:44 GMT
I just think that using computers should be outlawed because many people have been exploited by the industry that manufactures them. And you’d never be able to afford one IF those parts manufacturers and shippers were paid more fairly. OK, I don't know if in a socialist world whether the average person would be able to afford a computer. Perhaps they couldn't. In which case I would be worse off. But so what? The majority of the world as a whole would still be better off - we wouldn't have a huge chunks of the population labouring for privileged people in the first world to own a computer. Plus with Oprah, we're talking about someone who could afford tens of millions of computers if she wanted. If people like me and you are getting more than our fair share of the world's resources, it's nothing compared to the share Oprah gets. I’m not complaining about anyone getting more than their fair share. You are the one complaining about unfairness. Life is not fair! That doesn’t mean people who have the advantage should be “punished” to bring them down to everyone else’s level. If there are three children and only one piece of candy, you give it to the best child. You don’t refuse to give it to anyone so that it becomes “fair”. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 6, 2023 23:45:07 GMT
I’m not complaining about anyone getting more than their fair share. You are the one complaining about unfairness. Life is not fair! That doesn’t mean people who have the advantage should be “punished” to bring them down to everyone else’s level. It's not about punishing them, it's about raising everyone else up. Which means the advantaged will lose their advantage but they'll still be no worse off than anyone else. Sure, Oprah loses out but she'll still be better off than most of the world currently is. Meanwhile most of the rest of the world will be much better off. Isn’t that a better world? Just saying 'Life's not fair!' is a cheat. Imagine using that as a reason not to end slavery for instance. Or perhaps a reason not to build accessibility ramps for wheelchair users. If the world can be made fairer, it ought to be. Do you really think Oprah losing her billions would be a worse injustice than the current situation of global poverty and exploitation necessary to give her those billions? It's ethical to want to end poverty and exploitation of workers and we can't do that when most of the world's wealth is being funnelled to a select few. One - is Oprah "the best child"? Two - bad analogy really. It's more like all three children did chores to earn 1000 candies, but one of them gets 998 candies and the other two get one each (except the inequality is of a much greater magnitude than that). Maybe a fairer way might be to give them all 333 each and if Oprah is truly the best, sure, she can have the leftover one. You seem to think fairness entails everyone getting nothing. It actually means most people getting more than they currently do, some getting perhaps a bit less, and a tiny, tiny minority getting a lot less. Aside from unfairness, there are other problems with having billionaires - the amount of political influence their money can buy them for one thing. It also means the economy is dependent on the whims of private individuals, with extremely limited democratic controls over any of it. |
|
