Definitely not against experimenting with certain kinds of wealth redistribution (e.g. UBI), but it's weird that these convos sometimes start with "which policy should we use to make the wealthy less wealthy?" rather than "which policy should we use to make the poor less poor?"
-
Jet to a nice 3rd world country and explain to the desolate why one human deserves obscene wealth while another digs for scraps in a garbage dump. The argument is as old as time. The conversation starts there because that’s where it needs to start. Katie would bitch slap Mason.
It's not about who deserves what, it's about which actual actions solve which actual problems.
-
-
The conversation cant move forward until we agree that every human has a right to a share of the planet’s abundance. Own what our choices say about what we believe, “Do I deserve that Armani bag while on the other side of the world a child slaves for hours to make it?”
-
Every human being on this planet should have enough food, clothing, healthcare, housing, & access to social comfort to thrive. If anger at Armani handbags serves that, great! If it doesn't, it's a distraction. What's happened to wages/QOL in the poorest regions over time? Why?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
There is no rule in nature that says there must be wealth inequality these are human constructs that follow basic core values. Change our beliefs and our actions will follow.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.