Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I often (not as often as I should, though) marvel at how much I have, especially compared to so many others.  And I think that's the hard question -- how much would I be willing to give up if it would allow for a more just distribution of wealth?  Would I be willing to buy fewer sweaters, silly shoes, silver necklaces, music recordings, DVDs, books?  These are the luxuries in my life, and I'm sure I have many more things that I don't even think of as luxuries but which clearly are.  (Or at least it would be clear to those without them that they're luxuries.)

But would my having less really help distribute things more equitably?  I don't think so, not inherently.  It might make me feel better.  But me (or us, individually) having less stuff wouldn't necessarily mean that other people would have more, it would just mean there's less difference between us.  Maybe that's would be good, and I'd certainly be interested in arguments making that case.  But I would rather find an answer that actually makes lives better for those at the bottom.  If that answer would involve me having less, I'm all for it.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Feb 5th, 2007 at 12:09:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Fran 4
Carrie 4


Occasional Series