Charity

[502mania]

i am all for helping the needy. but i am against organizations that use peoples poverty to profit, that's wrong to me. don't get me wrong, some do help an are in it for a good cause. but others not so much...

[502mania]

I think that the world could be be livable for everyone if rich and poor were abolished. if no one was rich, no one would be poor.

[FuzzyCottonsocks]

I think that the world could be be livable for everyone if rich and poor were abolished. if no one was rich, no one would be poor.

Communism?

[Annella]

I think that the world could be be livable for everyone if rich and poor were abolished. if no one was rich, no one would be poor.

Communism?

Word out of my mouth FuzzyCottonsocks.

[502mania]

[/quote]

Communism?
[/quote]

Word out of my mouth FuzzyCottonsocks.
[/quote]
how is that communism?

[Annella]

Communism?
[/quote]

Word out of my mouth FuzzyCottonsocks.
[/quote]
how is that communism?
[/quote]

Obviously you have not studied Communism or Socialism.  One of the main stances is than everyone works for the collective good of all.  No one having more than another.  or....you get your needs met accordingly set up by a collective body that decides this.  It's pretty in depth, and slight nuances between the two.

[502mania]

well i meant that rich and poor not being controled or decdided, but suggesting that if no one in the world were rich , then everyone in the world would have food, shelter, education, and everything else needed to survive,,.

[Annella]

well i meant that rich and poor not being controled or decdided, but suggesting that if no one in the world were rich , then everyone in the world would have food, shelter, education, and everything else needed to survive,,.

Okay, how would you obtain that so called utopia?  How would you make sure that there were no rich?  Again....this is the core teaching of Communism/Socialism....."For the greater good".  Your implying because there are rich, that others do not have enough?  That's absurd.  Everyone has the same opportunity to "get" wealth, and pursue their form of happiness.  Only when that is restricted (we can only obtain to a certain level), can you actually realize the above, but with dire consequences.

It is in everybody to better their circumstances, for themselves, and their family.  If we are all getting the same food, same clothing, education, medical care, etc., where is the initiative for advancement or self improvement?  There is none.  Then we're a nation of no better than concentration camp attendees.  There is nothing to look forward to, or work towards......no goals to obtain.  What happens when a family of eight gets so much more than a family of 4 (because of their needs)?  Do we start limiting offspring then, so everyone is "more" equal.  Do you see where I'm going with this?  Study the countries that have implemented Socialistic and Communistic mandates.

[502mania]

i was speaking from the point of view that there is enough resources on this planet to sustain life amongst the earth between all human beings. not based on materialistic wealth. like, have you seen a wolf with more meat than he can eat, while other wolves in the woods starve? its not about a chance to get it, every thing is 1 is what im trying to say.  we have one world...

[Annella]

i was speaking from the point of view that there is enough resources on this planet to sustain life amongst the earth between all human beings. not based on materialistic wealth. like, have you seen a wolf with more meat than he can eat, while other wolves in the woods starve? its not about a chance to get it, every thing is 1 is what im trying to say.  we have one world...

I lived in Alaska for 16 years and YES, have seen a wolf with more than he can eat, and fights others for it.  Wolves are also territorial, and will fight over their territory and packs.  Wolves will also creep up to a dog house in a back yard, and eat the dog's food while the dog is in the house for the night.  You need another analogy to explain your position, because your example is moot. 

Yes, we have one world.  The good LORD gave us the resources of the US.  Because of our resources we have amassed materialistic wealth, which makes us powerful.  While we have more than we can eat, we do export a lot of our surplus to hungry nations.  However, not every nation feels the need to do so.

What your implying here is basically impossible without some overseer to "distribute" the wealth and natural resources of the world.  Therefore your proposal isn't sound.   

Are you dictating a One World Government to distribute?

[TVALLO]

I do agree, I understand charging a little for operating costs else how would you stay open to help people but profiting off of peoples donations is wrong.