Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCrimson
of course. but there was no money involved.
if we had no money now and used the resources as best as we can and make it so everything's equal, it means we wont have to kill either like they did caveman times. and there would be no war for oil, no poverty, no gap between rich and poor. of course the rich wouldnt be happy. they'd be pissed cos they'd be equal with the rest of us. but the rest of us wont have to go hungry and feel like we're less than the rich.
idk. to me that makes sense.
and thank you yuujirou =) that's exactly what i mean
|
You are personifying money as the source of evil. Money isn't evil. It is a tool for trade, and that's how it has always been. Instead of me giving you something you don't want for something I want, I can give you money: therefore you can buy something you want with money I give you for, say your fish.
Put it this way.
I have a car, but no fuel.
You have fuel, but no car. Instead you have a horse.
I have no horsefeed, so you have no reason to give me fuel to power my car.
So you are stuck with fuel and no horsefeed and I am stuck with a car and no fuel.
With money I can pay you for your fuel, you can then turn around and buy the horsefeed so you can ride to work and I can drive to work.
Why would you think eliminating money would make the rich poorer and the poor richer?
All it would mean is that precious commodities (like fuel and food) would turn into money.
Eliminating money wouldn't make everyone equal because you assume that money is what makes people unequal, but it is only one thing.
So either you are calling for a communist society, where the government distributes food and services equally among all people, or else you are calling for anarchy, where it is every man for himself, left to fend on his own.
Neither seems very attractive to me.