Hasn't the poverty rate consistently decreased?
If you went completely hungry yesterday, nearly starved to death, but today you get enough calories that you feel less pain so you can at least stand up and walk around a bit, while you watch your brother stuff his face with so much cake he has to puke 3 times to make room for more, to then play frisbee with the rest, what would you think? How it was for you yesterday isn't the standard. How it is for others, today, is the standard. It's about fairness and human dignity, nothing more and nothing less. If everybody was starving, we wouldn't even have a name for it, or a problem with it. It wouldn't be a slight on anyone.
Some people shriek in anguish or sob in darkness, kill themselves, over issues that would be a 2 minute phone call and a check that is 0.0001% of their monthly income for someone else. That's a problem, and that kings used to have less than the average homeless do today doesn't change that, and isn't something capitalism gets to take credit for either. Humans have been inventing and improving things since before history, even animals do it, that's just normal.
Why the hell should that matter? If the system wanted to keep poor people poor, won't the poverty rate stay the same? Thats the assertion I was countering.
Why keep moving the goalpost? But I will play along:
> If you went completely hungry yesterday, nearly starved to death, but today you get enough calories that you feel less pain so you can at least stand up and walk around a bit, while you watch your brother stuff his face with so much cake he has to puke 3 times to make room for more, to then play frisbee with the rest, what would you think? How it was for you yesterday isn't the standard. How it is for others, today, is the standard. It's about fairness and human dignity, nothing more and nothing less. If everybody was starving, we wouldn't even have a name for it, or a problem with it. It wouldn't be a slight on anyone.
1. You should first ask if your brother got his cake fair and square. If so, then you should be happy you are not puking and be happy for him. Don't be selfish. Let's say your brother worked 10 times more than you (80 hrs) and smarter than you while you stayed in bed and watched TV all day on his dime. Isn't inequality the fairer but still painful outcome in this case? F
2. Should you and your brother have the same quality of life despite the efforts you put in? Why should you be entitled to his fruits of action beyond sustenance?
3. If you agree there in diversity in level of effort and thought, then inequality is the fairer outcome.
4. Also, one should stop comparing only outcomes, you should also compare inputs.
One needs to look at circumstances that allow different inputs in the first place.
Your capacity for input is not some inherent core part of your being, unless you believe in souls, it is a result of what surrounds you and what has come before you.
And you accuse me of moving goalposts? You're not worth my time at any hourly rate.
I think sociopaths should be called out as the dumb fucking sociopaths they are.