Poll

[Queen Titania]

The problems of the World today, are as always, about money - but if ordinary people had a say in it wouldn't we all rather have a little less, live more simply, and live in a more peaceful and equal World than go on living in the mode we are now?

 

[Barbella]

The problems of the World today, are as always, about money - but if ordinary people had a say in it wouldn't we all rather have a little less, live more simply, and live in a more peaceful and equal World than go on living in the mode we are now?

Absolutely. While certain lefty posters seem to be under the impression that I'm some kind of trust fund baby and/or living off my "rich" husband, the reality is that I, personally, am a minimalist of the first degree. Material things mean shit to me, so the answer to your question is yeah.....

 

[Jen]

I don't believe that my lifestyle affects world peace one single bit.

The only thing that money has to do with world peace is that there are groups of people with money and and each group wants to be the richest and the most in control. They use the impoverished masses to fight each other as the proxies of those rich people who wouldn't get their hands dirty by fighting their own wars.

If I gave up my lifestyle under the idea that it would give us world peace, I would just become one of their little fighting minions scratching out an existence hating anyone that had more money than I had.

I'm not willing to do that.

 

[Jen]

The problems of the World today, are as always, about money - but if ordinary people had a say in it wouldn't we all rather have a little less, live more simply, and live in a more peaceful and equal World than go on living in the mode we are now?

The basic premise of your argument is right. Everything is about power and money and money gives a person power.

But

Us living a more simple life would NOT equate to world peace. So your solution is flawed. That's the liberal solution that involves the fantasy that it's what "should" be or "could" be. Maybe it should be that. But it cannot ever be that. The human condition will not allow it.

The liberal Utopian ideal is not possible to achieve.
It has been tried and it has always failed.

 

[resident_evil]

The problems of the World today, are as always, about money - but if ordinary people had a say in it wouldn't we all rather have a little less, live more simply, and live in a more peaceful and equal World than go on living in the mode we are now?

I'd prefer to raise those not at peace their lifestyle. It is likely why they are not at peace. They have nothing to lose.

 

[connieb]

The problems of the World today, are as always, about money - but if ordinary people had a say in it wouldn't we all rather have a little less, live more simply, and live in a more peaceful and equal World than go on living in the mode we are now?

I don't think its all about money. Frequently yes, but just as much - its about power and control. Having money - lets you fend off those who would seek to control you.

I don't believe in equality anyway.Some people are just smarter, more creative, more energetic more driven then others. There is no such thing as equal and whenever we have tried to create that - it has only created equal levels of misery among the masses - with as usual, those who have power, living lavishly, etc.

Aside from that I don't seek to gain material wealth for the "stuff". We do live relatively simply actually. I do seek to accumulate material wealth because it provides a measure of security. Hopefully because of the wealth I accumulate I will never have to be a burden on society or my family, because being a burden is in my opinion - probably the lowest you can be. Obviously some can not help being burdens and we should treat them with love and respect, but I have no tolerance or respect for those who out of their own stupidity, ignorance or poor decision making become someone's burden to bear. And, I count not accumulating material wealth in anticipation of the time you will need it - as part of that stupidity and ignorance.

connie

 

[Klunker]

QL... Just a straight answer to your question... Of course! If living on a little less would bring World peace for my children and grandkids, bring it on. I, respectfully, disagree with your premise. You are correct that wealth and power is the corruption that leads to war and strife. In most cases, that wealth is not something realized by the working class in any Country. The wealthy promote war in order to make themselves more wealthy. The "common people" are those sent to bleed and die in their stead. Those "commoners" who do come back from the wars have difficulty finding jobs at break even wages. The wealthy continue banking their bucks and begin looking for another avenue where they can improve the size of their purse.

 

[Boltlady]

I don't think its all about money. Frequently yes, but just as much - its about power and control. Having money - lets you fend off those who would seek to control you.

I don't believe in equality anyway.Some people are just smarter, more creative, more energetic more driven then others. There is no such thing as equal and whenever we have tried to create that - it has only created equal levels of misery among the masses - with as usual, those who have power, living lavishly, etc.

Aside from that I don't seek to gain material wealth for the "stuff". We do live relatively simply actually. I do seek to accumulate material wealth because it provides a measure of security. Hopefully because of the wealth I accumulate I will never have to be a burden on society or my family, because being a burden is in my opinion - probably the lowest you can be. Obviously some can not help being burdens and we should treat them with love and respect, but I have no tolerance or respect for those who out of their own stupidity, ignorance or poor decision making become someone's burden to bear. And, I count not accumulating material wealth in anticipation of the time you will need it - as part of that stupidity and ignorance.

connie

In many ways I agree with you here. For years I've tried to put myself in a position where I wouldn't be dependent on my family because I've known that I wouldn't have anyone that would actually be dependable. In fact I'm still working on trying to keep them from being dependent on me. Because of that I haven't gotten to where I wanted to be, but I do have some amount of security.

As for equality, I do believe that people should be able to progress based on their individual talents (not connections), because innovation would go out the window if some weren't able to move ahead. At the same time, I do believe that all of those on the bottom should have access to basic food, shelter and clothing. Those on the top should not accrue the obscene amounts that they do now. In short, I believe in a better balance.

In keeping with the tone of the poll and the TP, if it would actually help lead to a more peaceful world I would certainly be willing to live in a more frugal manner. As it is now though, I don't think it would help. To me, the key word was 'if'.

 

[BobbyT]

The problems of the World today, are as always, about money - but if ordinary people had a say in it wouldn't we all rather have a little less, live more simply, and live in a more peaceful and equal World than go on living in the mode we are now?

Yes.

 

[Dawg]

I can't become less affluent.............I corrected that years back to be ready for today.........amazing at what you thought you needed or must do isn't true.......even if all did that it wouldn't bring world peace..........never has been and never will be...

 

[Havelock]

The problems of the World today, are as always, about money - but if ordinary people had a say in it wouldn't we all rather have a little less, live more simply, and live in a more peaceful and equal World than go on living in the mode we are now?

If? Then yes. Actually, I think if we -- especially we here in the U.S. -- simply agreed that we'd all benefit if we took just a slightly less "zero sum" attitude toward life and that "accomplishment" needn't so often be judged primarily if not exclusively by its monetary value, then we'd be happier and healthier overall.

Slim chance of that happening anytime soon, though... Just look at this board. Some folks constantly measure their essential worth, and the degree to which they're superior to others, by how much they've sacrificed to obtain the resources and possessions they have now and the "good life" they hope to enjoy one day "soon."

And damn those who would take even a penny from them and theirs to fund something that they don't see as supporting their interests directly and concretely, here and now.

Oh well...

Cheers.

 

[RickWA]

The problems of the World today, are as always, about money - but if ordinary people had a say in it wouldn't we all rather have a little less, live more simply, and live in a more peaceful and equal World than go on living in the mode we are now?

I voted "yes" because there is no "yes but..." option.

Beware the ruse of the all powerful nation state as agent of peace - let alone arbiter of what constitutes affluence, excess, etc. I am a Christian. I'm no materialist. While I earn a fair amount and I own majority share of a significant, privately held company - any profound windfall I bring in goes to community (not the government, but private agencies of good) and to family. Stuff is just stuff. Possessions neither make you good or bad, just as their lacking makes you neither good nor bad. Where one's heart is makes one good or bad.

Peace requires neither abundance nor destitution. Peace requires goodness. Anyone who says otherwise is an agenda-pusher.

 

[BobbyT]

I voted "yes" because there is no "yes but..." option.

Beware the ruse of the all powerful nation state as agent of peace - let alone arbiter of what constitutes affkuence, excess, etc. I am a Christian. I'm no materialist. While I earn a fair amount and I own majority share of a significant, privately held company - any profound windfall I bring in goes to community (not the government, but private agencies of good) and to family. Stuff is just stuff. Possessions neither make you good or bad, just as their lacking makes you neither good nor bad. Where one's heart is makes one good or bad.

Peace requires neither abundance nor destitution. Peace requires goodness. Anyone who says otherwise is an agenda-pusher.

I liked your response for the "just as their lacking makes you neither good nor bad" statement, as I see here a lot of people commenting on the poor as though their lack of material resources makes them, indeed, bad.

 

[RickWA]

I liked your response for the "just as their lacking makes you neither good nor bad" statement, as I see here a lot of people commenting on the poor as though their lack of material resources makes them, indeed, bad.

Poor people have the advantage of not having their heads turned by material excess. Other than that, they are no different than middle or upper classes.
That said, would you or I seek their "advantage"? Probably not.

 

[Boca]

Us living a more simple life would NOT equate to world peace.
The liberal Utopian ideal is not possible to achieve.
It has been tried and it has always failed.

Nothing else to say, except that some leaders continue to think a simple life with everyone equal and responsible only to the state (them) is the answer.

Especially those with pen and a phone and a pimped up jet to take them anywhere, anytime and at any cost.

 

[Boca]

"

And damn those who would take even a penny from them and theirs to fund something that they don't see as supporting their interests directly and concretely, here and now.

"Take" is an interesting choice of words. I think "give" would have provided you a little cover?

 

[BobbyT]

Poor people have the advantage of not having their heads turned by material excess. Other than that, they are no different than middle or upper classes.
That said, would you or I seek their "advantage"? Probably not.

I have relatives who were teachers (mother, father, uncle) and a relative who is a social worker (daughter-in-law). They are / were poor in monetary gain because of their passion for their chosen profession. I have a great deal of respect for people who choose to follow their passions rather than the almighty dollar. But I read a lot from people, here and elsewhere, that people should obtain STEM degrees so they can be more assured of earning an income that doesn't put them at poverty wages and potentially at risk of budget cuts and therefore in need of help themselves. But then where would we get teachers and social workers?

 

[Jen]

I have relatives who were teachers (mother, father, uncle) and a relative who is a social worker (daughter-in-law). They are / were poor in monetary gain because of their passion for their chosen profession. I have a great deal of respect for people who choose to follow their passions rather than the almighty dollar. But I read a lot from people, here and elsewhere, that people should obtain STEM degrees so they can be more assured of earning an income that doesn't put them at poverty wages and potentially at risk of budget cuts and therefore in need of help themselves. But then where would we get teachers and social workers?

Teachers are so disrespected by students and by the parents of students, maybe this country needs to find a way to educate without them.

 

[RickWA]

I have relatives who were teachers (mother, father, uncle) and a relative who is a social worker (daughter-in-law). They are / were poor in monetary gain because of their passion for their chosen profession. I have a great deal of respect for people who choose to follow their passions rather than the almighty dollar. But I read a lot from people, here and elsewhere, that people should obtain STEM degrees so they can be more assured of earning an income that doesn't put them at poverty wages and potentially at risk of budget cuts and therefore in need of help themselves. But then where would we get teachers and social workers?

Understood. Let's also note that there are many here of the opposing view that private pursuits rather than public ones...and for profit engagement...is necessarily soiled.
I freely admit a bias in favor of the private sector (though not a bias in favor of wealth acquisition). Just being honest here.

 

[Havelock]

Understood. Let's also note that there are many here of the opposing view that private pursuits rather than public ones...and for profit engagement...is necessarily soiled.

Many here have stated that private, for-profit pursuits are necessarily soiled? Really?

Now, I'm not suggested that no one here has ever said as much; I just can't think of "many" examples. Maybe you could help me out.

Cheers.