Monday, June 16, 2014
Quality of life for all or unlimited wealth for some? (#1963)
Let us start with the fact, no question about it, that not all of us can be wealthy. Let us begin another premise that is also a fact, we can all have a quality of life that is satisfying. By my reckoning, only some can become wealthy while most live in desperate conditions; or all can have enough to be happy while some have more but not a ridiculous amount more. I choose the quality of life scenario. Remember now that we have a choice here. In our Democracy we are afforded the right to choose how we live in all aspects of our governance. Now admittedly, some will need more to have the quality of life they require and some will need little for theirs. But within reasonable boundaries, none of us should have too much and none of us should have too little. It is basic logic and mathematics to define our boundaries based upon our population and our resources. None of this is difficult to imagine or even calculate, the problem arises with the few who have way too much agreeing to have less to be satisfied in life. The majority that have too little are mostly all on board with devising a society that is more equitable. Since the few who are mostly the wealthiest have been set upon by their own selfishness, they cannot and will not allow for laws that restrict their ability to have even more. We are at a crossroads here in America where the battle has begun between the wealthiest who wish to have more and the vast majority of us who have way too little. Since we are a democracy, not an oligarchy or plutocracy, we should be able to legislate laws that bring our society back from practically unfettered individual wealth and power to a more reasonable merit system that rewards creativity and innovation at a good rate while keeping an economic foundation that no citizen falls below. It isn't hard to imagine an American society that celebrates it's citizens with opportunity and a quality of life that is admired and copied the world over.