SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Here's an example from the UN story:
[AC:] It is simple. Everyone gets a clean environment (free from lead, etc.) with safe clean drinking water.
The standards for what counts as safe have already been established. Here are water regulations for the US. Similar standards exist for other known toxins. Our issue is that you only get a safe clean environment if you can afford it. And, even then, the multi-million dollar houses in West LA turned out to be sitting on toxic waste that seeped over from the 'other' side of town / the toxic dumping predated turning formerly industrial areas into residential areas.
In other words, we want X so make a right to have X. Doesn't sound like the poster even cares how to do it or whether it'll even work because of course, it'll just work out of the box like all our other rights do. [Edit: cooler prose]
While I discussed that a bunch there, here's a summary of why I think just creating a right to something won't work.
In turgid's journal, we have an even sillier example:
[AC:] We have scarcity because right wingers like you desperately want the scarcity to exist. Your only objective is to exploit the working class as much as possible. To use the OP's analogy, you right wingers are the Ferengi.
Just like the Ferengi, you're not interested in scientific and technological progress that would raise the quality of life, reduce scarcity, and improve environmental conditions. Instead, you defend rent-seeking parasites who actively oppose scientific and technological advancements. A fine example is the fossil fuel industry, which should become obsolete as new technology develops and matures. Instead of allowing scientific progress to proceed, the fossil fuel industry engages in misinformation to protect a dying business model and oppose newer and better technologies.
We need less right wing rent-seeking parasites. We need to move past the lie that people are poor because they haven't worked hard enough, when the wealthiest members of our society tend to either inherit their wealth or build it through the exploitation of others. Left to your own devices, right wing psychopaths like you will cut corners with things like safety in factories, all the while demanding workers put in more labor for less pay. You right wingers are sick individuals, happy to let others languish in scarcity and work in dangerous conditions, all so you can line your pockets with more money.
There's a reason that Starfleet officers are warned about the Ferengi when they're at the Academy.
If only we could do something about the rightwingers, then we'd have post-scarcity right now.
What's missed in that verbiage is that you don't live in a society capable of either delivering a nebulous right to "access" to something nor supporting a post-scarcity economy. The cart is before the horse.
It's not rich people or failwingers holding you back. It's reality. That's why you didn't get your lollipop.
I think it's time to dispute such magic thinking. Our world didn't come easily. Just since civilization started, there have been hundreds of generations toiling - making our world what it is. But now, it's supposed to be simple. Just deliver the lollipops.
Well, just like those hundreds of other generations, you'll have to work for it. Maybe someday we'll never have to work to make our world a better place, but that hasn't happened yet.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:24PM
Let's examine khallow's "contributions" from this thread: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=45534&page=1&cid=1187823#commentwrap [soylentnews.org].
Much of that scarcity is because of inequitable distribution. Take COVID vaccines, where there genuinely is some scarcity. It's compounded by wealthy countries literally buying more vaccines than they can possibly use, then wasting and discarding significant amounts of the vaccines while poor countries have trouble getting much of the vaccines at all. Or look at water rights in the western US, where there is some scarcity. Use isn't prioritized on meeting basic needs and using water efficiently or for societal benefit. It's based on who claimed the water first. And if they want to waste that water while others who genuinely need it go without, that's how the system works now. When I'm restricted on how much rain water I can collect on my own property because someone else has the rights to the water, someone who may well not use the water for worthwhile purposes, that's unreasonable.
Then the businesses are run with the sole objective of maximizing profits, without consideration for customers, employees, society, or the environment. It's all about maximizing the profits. So yes, it's hoarding. It's not that being profitable is bad, but that the current system encourages companies to act like psychopaths for the benefit of those who can afford to invest.
At best, this ignores that we don't have anything resembling equal opportunity. This is the tired right wing argument that it's the fault of the poor that they're poor, while brushing aside any other issues. Most of the wealth that billionaires have is from rent seeking. But the wealthy have control of resources that allows them to engage in rent seeking while the poor cannot do so. Rent seeking is economic waste, but it succeeds in extracting money from the poor. That doesn't take into account exploiting cheap labor, because an excess of supply allows the wealthy to impose inhumane conditions on laborers because someone is willing to work that job. It's unethical, but helps the wealthy accumulate even more wealth.
Ah yes, you're appealing to the authority of the wealthy, that they have the wealth so they must be right. Even a first grader could make a more cogent and logical argument. As I have noted, much of the wealth accumulated by the wealthy is ill-gotten, acquired through rent seeking and exploitation. Basic fairness, upon which many laws are based, dictate that ill-gotten wealth should be returned to those from whom the wealth was taken. We shouldn't trust the wealthy to make good use of wealth acquired through exploitative and unethical means. Your "argument" fails spectacularly.
You're just repeating right wing talking points without bothering to understand why the scarcity you cite actually exists. Resources aren't scarce for everyone. Some have excesses beyond what they could ever hope to use, while others live with very little.
Because you're defending exploitation, the comparison to Ferengi is appropriate. Go ahead, write another journal because you don't like being shown that your position is asinine and easily refuted.