Re: I like it!
On Sat, 22 May 2004 22:41:46 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<csucbj@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>"[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote
>in message
>
news:0jdva05di9hforel0fipl6ch0o0sa9kjf6@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 22 May 2004 21:18:12 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
>> <csucbj@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Fortunately for "the poor" to whom you refer, there are
>> many other ways of achieving the same result as driving;
>> walking, buses, trains, cycling etc.
>>
>
>Not exactly the same result no - you can't (reasonably)
>walk 200 miles, you can't use a bus to explore the
>wilderness, you can't use a car as a means of getting home
>from the pub after a few.
You're being obtuse. To make it simple: bus or train for the
200 mile trip, walking or cycling for the wilderness, and
regarding the pub / car - what are you on about?
>> The fact that rich people can afford luxuries that poor
>> people cannot is rather a characteristic of capitalist
>> economies.
>
>Fair point
>
>> It's not caused by tax on fuel.
>
>It is exaserpated by relatively high tax on fuel.
Exacerbated. Similarly, I find, by the high price of a
decent malt or a bottle of bolly. Both of these 'must' be
artificially expensive since they are made from grain /
grapes, neither of which are in short supply. SOMETHING
MUST BE DONE.
>
>
>I would suggest some means of internalising wellbeing and
>happiness. I have no idea how to do it :-)
Then you need to examine your consumerist values.
>
>> No. Real poverty is a blight on the lives of many people
>> but not in this country. Real poverty means slow deaths
>> and permenant homelessness without hope.
>
>Which does happen here.
Can't agree here.
>
>> Real poverty does not mean being inconvenienced by the
>> lack of a car.
>>
>> Yes there are areas of the UK that are massively deprived
>> of both cash and opportunity. Places that should not be
>> denied investment and attention. But, please, do not
>> confuse this with the horrors of real poverty suffered by
>> millions of people outside this country.
>>
The problem being that poverty is usually related to mean or
median earnings, not the minimum cost of living.
>
>I would suggest that those several billion people (typo
>corrected) live not merely in "real poverty", but in
>extreme poverty.
>
>I would consider someone whose mere existance is to find
>enough money to afford the "necessities" to be poor (and
>this includes financially rich people who waste their lives
>in the rat race because they think they "need" a 4x4, or
>whatever)
Stupid definition. Stick with Real Poverty.
>
>I would consider someone who is able to enjoy their
>existance and dedicate a good time to things they enjoy and
>value to be rich.
>
>Those billions of people in extreme poverty should not be
>defined as poor simply because they lack food, water etc. -
>rather they should be defined as poor because their lack of
>food, water etc. prevents them from enjoying life and the
>opportunities it (should) offer.
>
>Now I enjoy driving - be it in a civilised manner to get
>from A to B, or in a competitive sense. If you gave the
>opportunity of a car (note this doesn't mean give me the
>car, but give me the opportunity to earn the money to
>afford the car, and the opportunity to learn how to run the
>car and so on) and the means and knowledge to run it (and
>the responsibilities that come with that of course), I
>would be wealthy. If you were to exchange that car for
>everything else on the planet, I would be poor.
I worked with someone like that once. His whole motivation
was to get a job with a company car. How very shallow.
>
>Maybe I just have an odd outlook on life.
I'd say.
>
>> >> >
>> >> >I mean in so much as it widens the gap between rich
>> >> >and poor.
>> >>
>> >> As long as the 'poor' can afford the necessities, why
>> >> should you want to inhibit the rich?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Why should the poor only be entitled to the
>> >"necessities"? Aren't they allowed a quality of life, to
>> >have some fun?
>>
>> Look, I wouldn't mind a new yacht but at 120,000 UKP my
>> wife won't let
>> me. I'd like a bit of that fun too. Why should I be
>> limited to only that which I can afford?
>>
>> Seriously, we have an adequate (careful choice of
>> word there)
>
>Is it?
Yes.
>
>I think we've gotten a bit off track here. My original
>point was that high fuel tax is unfair and inneffective
>(and the inneffective bit was supposed to be the main
>thrust of my point)
That would be because the tax is not high enough, for
reasons given earlier.
>
--
Cheers,
Al
