Tuesday, April 10, 2012

The Right to Equality... Capitalism

Fairness as the key to Right of Equality was covered in a former post.

Here, I discuss equality and capitalism.
It is inevitable that there will always be rich and poor in a capitalist system,
and of course, money does not solve all problems for anyone.
But capitalism can work without such a huge divide, of rich and poor,
in which mental and physical separation create such a divisive form of suffering.

The balance is tilted.
When too much money flows into the hands of a few,
and too little money flows into the hands of many,
you have a broken society.

One potential, partial solution (not the ultimate only solution) to relieve extremes is through the way the money moves. Money needs to flow like water in a circle rather than a one-way upward rocket to outer space. Money has to come back down. But now, it flows in a line upward, dividing us and creating the broken, unbalanced society 
of 1% wealthy and 99% other.

What if social giving for the wealthy was, instead of a random choice,
an obligation of having money?
What if social responsibility became a social norm for all wealthy persons,
reducing the current levels of greed and arrogance by
replacing them with embracing life, love, and compassion?

That is, if a person receives money wealth, couldn't
they assume social responsibility as a part of owning that money?
The result moves us closer to a global community of harmony and balance.
Some wealthy do this, and they are community heroes.
Too many do not.


Funneling wealth money downward is not a norm, at present.
But couldn't "trickle-down economics" become "flow-down economics,"
where more wealthy take on larger, more significant actions that also create jobs?
Instead of another home, the rich person builds a better school.
Instead of a larger yacht, the rich person builds a free hospital.
Instead of another Rolex watch, the rich person buys acres of land
and then gifts it to Nature Conservancy to protect biodiversity.
These actions provide freedoms and rights to others, such as the Right to Learn,
the Right to Body Care, and the Right to Biodiversity.

Another blog Be the Change posted an article on 1/12/12 titled
"This Suit Isn't Going To Be Here When You Die"
and wrote:

"..."I'd love to see more wealthy people doing their part. Too many of them love running around the globe and spending $10,000 on a suit. Why not save children's lives and better the world? That suit isn't going to be here when you die, but the next generation will."...Think about that the next time you make a big purchase, and ask yourself what you're going to do to balance it out." 
Read this great post.


Just as corporations are increasingly doing
CSR-- corporate social responsibility--as a social norm,
I would like to coin a new term: ISR--individual social responsibility--
could this become the new social norm? 

Maybe, each wealthy person would have his own "ISR consultant."
These actions/projects would also help employ our huge, untapped resource: millions of college-educated individuals, living at the lower income levels.

Wealthy children could be groomed with the knowledge that they, too, have this obligation, if huge money becomes theirs. And, all wealthy people, at the end of their lives, could proudly list the social actions they had accomplished. Instead of the broken system of today, there may be an increase of harmony through compassion, with reduced anger and violence. These actions add to the army of individual  volunteers already involved in community service and to an increased understanding that more knowledge and opportunities for all help level the extremes.

Of course, true equality can never really be attained in this system, but couldn't its extremes be lessened?
Inequality has its function in society, as commenter AG states: "If we are all equal in this world, then where will the spark that lights the fire come from?"


(Post-note:  At present, ISR also stands for:
Intellegience, Surveillance, and Reconnaisance,
a government military term!)


Revision thanks to: BRM, YEM, AG, Fidela, RCW

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

I disagree somewhat with this posting. Money is not going to solve every poor person problems. The rich have money because this is a free country and they have acquired it, whether it is because of opportunities, education or inherited. Why should the rich be the only ones to contribute to the poor? Why not have more people volunteer, and help communities understand how to improve their lives, rather than give them hand outs. People have to earn their keep… in order to appreciate what they have. BRM

Anonymous said...

Money may not be a permanent solution at times for a poor person, however, it can lessen the burden, especially when someone is homeless or hungry. Anyone that has worked hard for there money deserve to spend it as they choose. Nevertheless keep in mind all the rich individuals that have made there millions at the personal expense of others. The saying is "give a man a fish and he will eat for the day, teach him how to fish and he will eat forever". Every human being has only one body, truly how many homes can he or she live in at one time? When is it enough? It is a social responsibility that those that are able to do more use there resources to aid others. "Teaching the man how to fish for themselves". Everyone has the right to live and having there basic neccesities avaiable!-YEM

Anonymous said...

In my previous post I met to end the sentence by "Having there basic neccesities met".-YEM

Anonymous said...

Money cant solve all probelms and it cant buy everything in life. It's not a solution to a poor person's problems. Whether the rich have money through opportunities in life, education or inheritance, they shouldnt be the only ones to help the poor. There should be more volunteers helping communities in need. We all have the right to basic necessities regardless our economic standing. -ABL

Anonymous said...

I agree with these ideals, but there is no need for such equality. Those that are born with too much, usually never struggle unless they are "black sheep". Then those who have nothing sometimes lack the motivation and self-esteem to care for a thing in the world around them, so they fail to pursue a goal. The balance resides in the middle. One needs to be given the motivation and psychological support to strive, especially at a young age, yet never be given too much. If we all are equal in this world, then where will the spark that lights the fire come from? Where will inspiration and dreams come from? Also where will the cold truths of reality come into play? The world needs inequality, it sets examples, it sets experience, and it sparks the fire. Yet the world can never be too unbalanced, you need something of everything. So in reality even the homeless drug addict is needed in the world, but when there are too much homeless drug addicts, then you know there is a real problem.

AG

Anonymous said...

I agree that money can’t solve every issue, however it does have the ability to drastically change a life. The wealthy people that choose to be greedy with their money, obviously don't truly appreciate their way of living. Unfortunately in today’s world, most people are selfish. Whether a person is wealthy or has an average income, neither does much for the less fortunate. I believe it’s wrong to just point fingers at the rich because they are not the only ones capable of helping the poor. In order for society to change their ways of thinking, each person must individually be influenced by an experience that causes them to actually care about the less fortunate.-S.S

Anonymous said...

I agree with the idea of wealthly people giving more to the community and to needy people but there is only so much you could help with to make their life better. Yes they can pay for three months rent for a homeless person but what is going to happen for the rest of the nine months. That person who is homeless has got to want to better himself instead of relying on people to live life. If they are not doing anything like applying for jobs and other things like that then they cant expect wealthly people just to keep on helping them, they have got to want to help themselves.-I.C.

Anonymous said...

As some of my fellow students, I agree and disagree in some points with the post. First I definitely think that if you become rich, you have the right of spending the money the way you want. Second reason poverty has nothing to do with rich people. It deals with the mindset of the poor, I think that the government has to give the same opportunities to everyone ,but every person take their own choices some chose to study, be productive, innovate, be leaders. Some others decide to be followers, and the minority decide to live life in a free way. However I do agree that wealthy people should be more social responsible ,but their priority is to create more and well pay jobs.
By ASR.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the concept that those that are wealthy have some responsibility to society but not to take on a person or family. I agree with the first poster and believe every person is responsible for his or her life. Enabling is never a solution. TL

Fidela said...

Capitalism. Fairness is the key to the problem of the 99% vs 1%. Government is entitled to provide jobs to all citizens, and from that particular issue, there is the road to success available by your own means! Fidela.

Anonymous said...

Having all the money in the world isn’t going to make your problems go away. It may make you happy temporally but it won’t solve anything. I would have to agree with ABL statement. A.H

RCW said...

Continuing Robin Hoods legacy and taking from the poor to give to the rich may not be the ultimate solution to the age old rich to poor unequal dynamic. The best solutions I forsee could begin from leveling the playing field for knowledge and opportunities. All the rich people didn't come from rich backgrounds, but we can help create a rich community through opportunity and not simply handouts.

Anonymous said...

Money can solve most of our problems. Unfortunatley, not everyone has the luxury of having large quantity's of it. Most people suffer from not having wealth, therefor, it causes an inbalance in our society and change our judgement between eachother. Money has more power than what it should. J.S

Anonymous said...

I agree with BRM and YEM that money is not a solution their are many people that get millions of dollars and a couple years later are completely broke and lose everything. Yes everyone should have an equal oppertunity to progress in life but its sad to say that not everyone will and some people just want handouts and blame everything on governments and even if it has nothing to do with them. So sometimes even teaching a man to fish he can still end up starving himself.

A.M.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I love capitalism. I love walking into our huge American Malls and seeing Capitalism at its finest. It is true that just giving money to poor people will not completely solve their problems. But, if the poor people had more money it would make things a whole lot easier for them. You can't just redistribute the wealth though because then you end up with communism. No capitalism is not perfect, but in my opinion it is better than communism.MBS

Anonymous said...

I agree with the right to equality… capitalism. In a perfect world, it would be ideal that those who have the money and time help those who do not. However, in reality that is not the case, and those few people that do help may only do for commercial purposes, that cause them to be better liked. As Spiderman quotes, “with great power comes great responsibility.” Those with money have the power but lose themselves in greed to take responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves.

M.D.L.

Anonymous said...

I believe that philanthropy is the best gift to yourself and others. If you are able to afford ultra luxuries such as yachts, then why not make a donation to those who are less fortunate. 70% of the worlds population lives in poverty, so why not help those who are less fortunate? It may not be your direct responsibility, but it gives you a chance to make another life better.
G.C.

Anonymous said...

The word capitalism, does not look good with equality. capitalism is great, but it does not necessarily includes everyone, is about making your own money in your own terms. capitalism has nothing to do with equality, yes you have the same rights as everybody else but you get according to what you work for.

S.A.

Anonymous said...

Capitalist systems are not usually associated with the idea of equality. I agree with A.G's comment that " If we all are equal in this world, then where will the spark that lights the fire come from?". Inequality encourages people to strive to improve their position in life. I am not at all in disagreement with the idea that if more money was available it would make things somewhat easier. -JAY

Anonymous said...

Capitalism DOES work with equality. Everyone has an equal opportunity to become wealthy. Like a comment mentioned somewhere above, it is about the mindset of the person. If you have the correct way of thinking how to become successful, you will. Simply sitting back and not taking action will make you become poor, useless, and unsuccessful. Maybe there are a few cases that may not fall under the best circumstances, but regardless, people have to learn to become diligent and hardworking in order to obtain what they really want. In most cases, that means money. BKR

Anonymous said...

I do think that this post is correct. In the fact that money will allow the poor to grow then continue the circle of money. money for the poor will not solve their personal live of family issues, but it will allow the poor the option to get free and break the norm of their routines and make a difference.
-jpg

Anonymous said...

 In a perfect world this concept would be ideal, but definitely is not like that...
To be honest I don't know until what point this will be a solution. I do think that poor people should have more resources  or just some kind of education of how to obtain a decent life. On the other hand, I believe giving more to the community should be a requirement for those "lucky ones".
*NG*

Anonymous said...

I think the issue relies on control vice monetary affiliation. Those in control ensure they continue to have it by neglecting those of the lower class with better education, living standards, and basics needs, while promoting segregation and isolation. You may circulate the money, and give more to the needy but if they remain uneducated, and ignorant the money may be misused, and those using it with it may still live in mediocrity since that is all they have known their entire life.
AYS

Anonymous said...

I agree and disagree with this post. It's wrong to blame the wealthy for not helping the poor because the United States is a free country and we may choose what we want to do. If a wealthy person wants to buy a suit, then they have every right to because they have earned their wealth, whether it is because of opportunities, education or inherited. It's their money and they can do as they please. I also believe that the wealthy should help out in some ways, but i don't believe they have all the responsibility to help the poor.
J.R.

Anonymous said...

In a communist society to believe that there can be trickle down economy is out of the question. No rich family wold want to contribute to the poor. YML

The Wandering Light said...

I love the concept of helping out the world by leveling the playing field in terms pure capital. However, this would never work when you remind yourself of human nature. Every person, including yourself, always is thinking about getting a better car, a newer phone, or nicer furniture. Every part of life always has a successor, and with that next step comes money. WE CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH.

Anonymous said...

Money can't solve problems. As the song states, more money= more problems. JJ

Anonymous said...

Definitely! The extremes must be lessened. There will always be a gap between the rich and the poor, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize how large the gap is and not do something about it.
KR

Anonymous said...

I agree with BRM, those who have a good economic status strived one way or another to get to their position. Perhaps some people have it easier, but in the end, the real challenge is how the money earned is kept and invested.
Q.M.

EvensCh90 said...

This equality has many flaws but I agree with it in some ways. For example we usually look at the wealthy people as a role model and imitate what they do or want the stuffs that they have. Therefor if we see them getting involved with a lot of community work and devoting their time to the ones in need, we would want to do the same if ever blessed with that kind of “power”. E.P.C

Anonymous said...

-I dont completely agree with the "Right to Equality" basically because, "More money, More Problems" I once read a story on a utopia world and everyone was equal in society. Their different cllasses of society for a reason. Either you work for what you want or you dont. The united states is a free country who offers major assistance and equal opportunities to everyone to succeed.-J.D.

Anonymous said...

There should be ISR for the wealthy. Most of the wealthy people have the right to be wealthy because they worked hard to get where they are at. But most of them already had better means than the rest of the world. They buy everything to make themselves feel better and in reality they aren't feeling any better. If they were to try and help the population by giving instead of buying then we might be a better nation. But until then we have to work hard for our money!

Anonymous said...

RCT

Anonymous said...

Money does make life easier ,but if in the wrong hands,can cause more problems for the person than originally started out with.
J.A.