Do the needs of the many outweigh the whims of the few?
Do the needs of the many outweigh the whims of the few?
This is a part two of a similar question asked here: https://slrpnk.net/post/24228904
Basically I am workshopping progressive sligans. I am a basic agitator and interact with a lot of people who lean progressive but aren’t politically engaged yet. Crowd-sourcing the revolution, I guess.
The question implies a zero-sum model where one group's needs are mutually exclusive with another group's, which isn't always the case. If we're fighting over limited resources, it'd certainly make sense for greater people to have resources, than fewer. Otherwise, in a post-scarcity world, the question is how systems can be reworked so that everyone's needs can be met.
The slogan might also require a bunch of annoying semantic arguments over what "needs" are. For instance, if we're comparing the top 1% to the other 99%, can we really call the demands and expectations of the 1% "needs"? The rich aren't going to die if they're taxed a bit more.
It’s not necessarily zero-sum to say that occasionally people’s interests come into conflict.
I assets you mean "A greater number of people"?
A good case study is the billionaire family that owns in n out. They pay staff fairly well and sell their product at fairly reasonable prices. And still they are billionaires. The point that no rich person will ever understand is that we can provide for society handsomely and they will STILL BE FUCKING RICH. they will still have more money than everyone else, and we will still work at the jobs we have now. There is no need for poverty to exist except for the fact that some people think it’s awesome and perpetuate it. Misery and destitution can be cut by like 85% but no, the ownership class enjoys watching it.
But they could afford to buy beef from better sources. They could afford for their employees to have a career instead of a job. They could do that and still cost less than McDonalds. Yeah they’re alright compared to the big corporations but they are not improving the world - they are extracting profit from it.
Yes. We've seen governments prove that they can provide for thir citizens. It just means billionaires becoming multimillionaires. They would still be able to buy anything they would ever want for themselves. All that is required is for the hoarders to give up some of their stuff. And as we know, hoarders need all that stuff. Their life is over unless they have all of their stuff!
The problem is that they can easily turn their "stuff" into cold hard cash.
Yeah, you get it. I aim to trivialize the oligarchy. The idea that we can make the world better at nearly zero cost. The only cost is the therapy bills of the former billionaires, as they work through their butthurt at being reduced to mere opulence.
Their life is over unless they have all of their stuff!
I'm ok with these peoples lives ending.
Hoarders gonna hoard.
It's a nice buzzword for Vulcans to justify some horrible shit using logic, but if you go deeper than a StarTrekism buzzword, then it doesn't really make much sense.
For example, Trans rights. Trans need to be safe. RWNJ's need to feel safe, and out number them. Who wins?
in the real world, everybody wins when Trans people's rights are protected and everybody- especially the most vulnerable- are kept safe. Including the RWNJ's.
That example's a good one for a anotger reason: right wingers do need to feel safe, but that doesn't mean that anything needs to be done about trans people. RW perceptions of what needs to be done are wrong, because they are based on myths and misunderstandings about the risks transness. Or another way to say it: the need for safety is real, solutions proposed by rightwingers are not appropriate, even aside from the issue of trans rights, because they won't solve need for safety - hiding the bogeyman under a rug or behind criminalisation won't make it go away, and will increase misunderstanding.
Trans need to be safe. RWNJ's need to feel safe
Being safe outweighs feeling safe, so this whole analogy is void.
Being safe outweighs feeling safe, so this whole analogy is void.
WOW.... you managed to get my point and still miss it. Impressive.
It's a grey area that requires many diverse opinions and backgrounds to discuss
Applied from a benevolent point of view it should always be a last resort if you've exhausted all your options to provide the needs of all
Star trek for example has shown it in its benevolent form where you see Spock saving the many over his own needs ultimately sacrificing himself
But it can lead into dangerous territory such as eugenics or discrimination when used in a malevolent or even unintentionally in a benevolent way like eugenics or discrimination for example
So the argument is well meaning but it can also lead to dangerous territory, its a double edged sword
The needs of the all should always be prioritised above all else
I think there are two more questions that need to be answered first, before being able to tell whether we should prioritize the many.
First question is what is the ultimate goal behind prioritizng the many? Happiness of the population? Infinite growth? To conquer the stars? Depending on what the goal is, there are occasions where minorities should be the focus if we want to approach the goal the fastest.
Example is moon landing: The amount of resources that was spent on "simply" building a rocket, space suits & equipment, and send a couple of humans over there was prioritizing the few. Despite a lot of people watching with curious eyes, it did not benefit the many's needs much. There were several goals here: Being before the USSR, explore the unknown, satisfying shareholders, and more. By the many working hard to send the few, we approached all these goals faster than if we would allocate some of these resources towards the many's needs, like health (prime days of smoking cigarettes).The second question is what timeframe are we talking? Is it long-term or short-term success we're aiming for? Because in many cases, if we want long-term success fast, the many are those who should "suffer".
Example is where the long-term goal is the glorious evolution of mankind: In one way, we downprioritize the few who are those born with defects, either by culling them or by ensuring they do not make offspring. In another way, we downprioritize the many who are on- or below-average intelligence/capabilities. But then we get the question of how we quantify the few/many; where do we draw the line? And as we get more smart/capable humans, the average constantly shifts - what is the concrete goal?Suffice to say that this is written without emotion, as that makes this discussion the soup it really is: Ethics, benevolence, discrimination, etc., as you mentioned.
I like the "needs of all" messaging, it combats polarization. Ultimately we are all human and should have basic rights: food, housing, healthcare, expression
What sort of whims are we talking here? The way you word this it answers itself. The needs of everyone are equal, rights apply to all. If we can't protect "the few" we are all at risk.
But if you mean whims like every time I go to the beach someone doesn't have food for a week, no, obviously I wouldn't go to the beach until that was fixed.