4 ms·
> if it doesn't that is okay too. So for people who find themselves going into dept slavery, unable to feed themselves and their children well, unable to affor
by esperent 6y ago
> if it doesn't that is okay too.
So for people who find themselves going into dept slavery, unable to feed themselves and their children well, unable to afford healthcare, and so on, you're saying it's all good, just a bad roll of the dice, nothing to worry about?
Seems to me more like the system is fundamentally broken if pure chance is all that seperates a millionaire and the destitute and downtrodden.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- pengstrom 6y agoYes, hence the widespread criticism of capitalism.
- adwn 6y ago> Yes, hence the widespread criticism of capitalism. Social classes and social immobility are millenia-old phenomena and are completely independent of capitalism.
- sunshinerag 6y agocapitalism? you mean socialism?
- engineer_22 6y ago-> Seems to me more like the system is fundamentally broken... What assumption have you made about the system's purposes and functions? This is an important question and one we are currently wrestling with as a society. It's one of the BIG QUESTIONS and hard to answer. Plato's Republic might be a good starting place.
- ivanhoe 6y agoI think OP meant that it's OK to be middle class mediocre, nothing especially bad or shameful about it. Being poor is the other extreme of the system - just like good luck and smart decisions can make you rich, bad luck and stupid moves can make you poor. I don't think that anyone argued that society shouldn't reduce the risks and provide a safety net for poor people. Also IMHO for social stability it's important that system slowdowns both of these tendencies, not let people get extremely poor, but also not extremely rich over the night.