Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» Why must the powerful ALWAYS take more than their fair share? Why can't they leave room at the trough and a seat at the table for others?
Well, the question implies that there is such a thing as "fair shares". But, to restate the truism, "Life isn't fair". So we start off with an unbalanced scale in the first place. Even if we grew future generations in a lab, with identical DNA and intelligence/wisdom and education and wealth ... some would perform better than others at certain things. So we'd still have "unfairness", no matter how hard we try to make everyone equal.
That doesn't answer your question, just pointing out that there will always be those who are "more powerful" in certain areas than others.
My grandparents lived through the Great Depression - so they hoarded everything. Showing one example of why someone would "take more than their fair share" - not so much out of greed, as fear.
Some people do it to give their descendants greater freedom and/or security.
Some people do it simply because they want the most toys.
Thank you for a very thoughtful reply Walt. There are 4 apples. There are 4 children. Fair is that each child get one apple. The bully takes all of them. In this case we KNOW what fair is. It isn't that difficult to figure out. Now if one child is starving and the other three are very fat perhaps a kindness would be for the FAT KIDS to give their apples to the one who is starving. It isn't that hard to figure out. SIGH. Happy Tuesday m'dear! :)
Yep. That math looks simple. But then we have to look at global resources, and it starts getting complicated. (surprise)
But what if all the apples and 2 of the kids are on ContinentA ... 1 kid is on ContinentB ... and 1 kid on ContinentC? And while the apple is still good when it gets to ContinentB, it is rotting by the time it gets to ContinentC? Should we move the kid from ContinentC to one of the other Continents, so they can all have fresh apples?
But where would such apples come from? They don't automatically just "grow on trees". Unless someone has a reason for planting apples there will be no apples. You can't just assume that apples, or anything else, will just always be there whatever automatically. And what if all you could afford was one apple? And the fat kids who eat to much may be in worse shape health-wise than the ones starving. And if you have to ship your apple to those starving it may rot before it reaches them so would do the no good at all. All of these are realistic variables.
You did a trough and fill it with food. Now that will not guarantees that anyone will eat that food - perhaps they resent being treated like they are animals. You make a space at your table for them but perhaps they will not accept because they don't care for what you are serving! It is not so cut and dried as you think.
But who is to determine just what is our "fair share"? Obama? You? If you don't have something would you deny it to everyone else as well? A government which prevents its people from succeeding is totalitarian. Are we all to live in poverty then? Is that your solution? Eternal poverty with absolutely no chances of bettering our lot?
Walt O'Reagun 