True liberty: If man desires liberty, he/she must ensure that this freedom brings about improvements in equality and charity. If not, then the liberty he/she desires is not going to make any improvements in terms of socio-economic conditions.
I call this "false liberty" because it is not bringing society to become more charitable. Sure, it will guarantee people more rights then before but it does not aim to tackle inequality or raise the charity level in society, hence the society's economic levels are the same before the change.
One thing that man must understand is that liberty cannot bring man into improving society's economic conditions alone. Ideas of equality and charity must be included into the process if the society desires to reduce inequality and improve class tensions.
Before I move on to acceptable inequality, I will like to link economic conditions with equality. Unfortunately, the world is still stuck in an environment where economic indicators are still the main indicator of economic growth. The problem is: Whose economic growth are we calculating? The rich or the poor? These indicators(except for those referring to literacy rates, employment rates etc.) are mainly an indicator of foreign investment into a nation, and who are the people who invest? The answer is the rich who own businesses. The problem is that the working poor and middle classes get little or no gain from economic growth because their wages are always tied to the employer, not the country. Hence, the living conditions of the poor are much poorer than the living conditions of the rich. That is the reason why when indicators indicate positive economic growth for a nation, there can be anger in the nation due to the poor envying the rich's lifestyles, while their own living conditions have seen little or no improvement.
So, now we move on to acceptable inequality. We should ask ourselves: Has anyone in the world solved inequality? Even the Communists had some inequality although their inequality was dramatically lower than those in other countries. Hence, there will always be some inequality in all societies. However, if you consider the points I mentioned above, you will realise that there are tensions between classes due to different lifestyles and envy. Hence, a good indication of a nation's equality would be "acceptable inequality"
"Acceptable inequality"- A state of inequality where the poor can afford the lifestyles of the richest people in the world
So what we notice is that we are now trying to make improvements to society more practical, instead of trying to solve inequality(which no one has accomplished as of yet), we are trying to allow the poor access to what the rich have in their lifestyles. Would you be less angry now given that you have the opportunity to live like the rich, even for just one day? I suppose most of you reading this should be happier.
The problem is the difficulty in finding a practical solution to achieve such means. That is when I bring the concept of charity into the picture, but at a whole new level. In my vision of charity, the rich not only voluntarily or are forced gives to the poor, but the rich also shares his/her lifestyle with the poor. This would make allowing the poor to achieve experiencing the rich's lifestyles must easier. To do this, I suggest nations implement laws whereby the tax of the rich are decreased from the 50% standards in the European Union to a tax rate much more affordable , but tax elements such as "Electricity and water for the poor tax" are included in all these taxes to pay for the poor's electricity and water bills. In addition, the rich, when buying property, can be asked to pay a portion of the money to subsidise the costs of purchasing homes for the poor. Further tax reductions can be given for charitable rich people who have considerable contributions in building public facilities such as hospitals. At eating outlets where the rich frequent, the governments can allow subsidisation of food costs to make it much more affordable to the poor. The rich can also agree to lend out their expensive cars to poor people for affordable prices so that the poor can at least get a chance to drive expensive cars(the rich gain monetarily too!).
Note: I am a busy student with no time to read or reply to your comments. Please do not criticise anyone in your comments as this blog is meant to be constructive. If I have unintentionally criticised anyone or any organisations, please accept my sincere apologies. This article is not meant to increase tensions between classes and if this negative consequence result from this, I also would like to express my sincere apologies.
For more details on appropiate behaviour and conditions of my blog, please see the blog titled Kenneth blogs blog rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment