# How would you go about eradicating absolute poverty?



## Epitomity (Nov 13, 2012)

I'm interested.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

What is "absolute" poverty? 

Anarchy (the sociopolitical system) will eliminate poverty by eliminating the monopolization of resources. Only where people have to rely on others to dole out monopolized resources does poverty exist. For evidence, see all the tribes in the world who continue to live without government. None of them are poor per se.


----------



## Epitomity (Nov 13, 2012)

Nicomendes MacIdriss said:


> What is "absolute" poverty?
> 
> Anarchy (the sociopolitical system) will eliminate poverty by eliminating the monopolization of resources. Only where people have to rely on others to dole out monopolized resources does poverty exist. For evidence, see all the tribes in the world who continue to live without government. None of them are poor per se.


Absolute poverty is the condition where household income is below the necessary level to maintain basic living standards (food, shelter and housing).

How would you go about bringing about anarchy?


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Potato’s of course! Canablism has to many unwanted health risks.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Epitomity said:


> How would you go about bringing about anarchy?


 Details are best decided at the local level because local residents know their own sociopolitical conditions (current and desired) better than anyone else. 

It seems to me that the easiest way to start in the United States (and probably several other places) is for people to cut down the birth rate. It's easier for people to drop out of the job market/become independent of government (and, for women, become independent of men) if they don't have children. 

As the population dwindles, people will be able to first get jobs more easily, then work less, and eventually stop working for others at all. Key jobs in public services and infrastructure will go unfilled and everyone will have to depend on themselves and those closest to them more and more, and we will have more freedom to do so because we won't have to compete with teeming masses for resources. The government will be able to control us less and less because we will have to deal with the government less and less to get what we need. (Imagine abandoned property people squat in and abandoned stores that people break into to take what they need while the local police force has few officers and the local population is too low for them to bother patrolling there much.) 

The government will eventually collapse because too few people will be paying taxes to support them. With it goes the police. Then people will be free to defend themselves without worrying about going to jail, free to take what they need without worrying about committing property crimes, and free to move where they want without worrying about having documentation or affording housing.


----------



## Epitomity (Nov 13, 2012)

Nicomendes MacIdriss said:


> Details are best decided at the local level because local residents know their own sociopolitical conditions (current and desired) better than anyone else.
> 
> It seems to me that the easiest way to start in the United States (and probably several other places) is for people to cut down the birth rate. It's easier for people to drop out of the job market/become independent of government (and, for women, become independent of men) if they don't have children.
> 
> ...


Your scenario is very unrealistic for our modern days. Anarcho-capitalism cannot ever work because it will always devolve into fascism due to today's power of money. Where in the past wars could be won with numbers, the same can hardly be said today with all the weapons of mass destruction available unless the playing field becomes leveled, although it wouldn't be far-fetched to call it World War 3 at that point due to the inevitable ensuing scale of destruction.

The more I think about it, the less anarcho-communism seems likely to work either. It essentially suffers the same weakness as all kinds of anarchy, which is nothing prevents it from reverting back to a state society. Nothing, unless measures are made to ensure it stays that way, but it wouldn't be stateless then.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Epitomity said:


> Your scenario is very unrealistic for our modern days. Anarcho-capitalism cannot ever work


 I never said anything about anarcho-capitalism.


----------



## Epitomity (Nov 13, 2012)

Nicomendes MacIdriss said:


> I never said anything about anarcho-capitalism.


Ah, you were talking about anarcho-communism. What makes you believe anarcho-communism won't devolve back into capitalism, or even anarcho-capitalism before devolving back to capitalism? This is all assuming the independence afforded by the lack of children will lead to anarchy of course, instead of being further leading toward capitalism with consumerism.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Epitomity said:


> Ah, you were talking about anarcho-communism.


 You are having a conversation with yourself and using me to project shit onto. Go post a thread about anarcho-whatever if that's what you want to discuss, and stop pretending to engage me. Or continue, whatever. I won't be reading it.


----------



## Anunnaki Spirit (Mar 23, 2018)

This world is backward and very primitive that such is nearly impossible until society comes to terms that things has to change which ultimately it will have to evolve.


----------



## Epitomity (Nov 13, 2012)

Nicomendes MacIdriss said:


> You are having a conversation with yourself and using me to project shit onto. Go post a thread about anarcho-whatever if that's what you want to discuss, and stop pretending to engage me. Or continue, whatever. I won't be reading it.


My bad then. Then I have no idea what you're talking about, although if it's not anarcho-anything, then it's anarchy. What makes you think anarchy won't devolve back into a state society? History has shown that humans are social creatures.


----------



## Iron Wind (Dec 8, 2018)

I'm pretty sure that's impossible (world-wide) without having near limitless resources and advanced automation. If we're talking demographically, then it is much more plausible in certain cases.


----------



## xwsmithx (Jan 17, 2017)

To get rid of poverty, you'd have to get rid of stupid people (IQ<90), mentally ill people, and people addicted to drugs & alcohol. The few poverty-stricken people left would be prostitutes and runaways. Give them a place to go and a job, and you'd have eliminated poverty entirely. It's the getting rid of people part that is the problem.


----------



## Epitomity (Nov 13, 2012)

xwsmithx said:


> To get rid of poverty, you'd have to get rid of stupid people (IQ<90), mentally ill people, and people addicted to drugs & alcohol. The few poverty-stricken people left would be prostitutes and runaways. Give them a place to go and a job, and you'd have eliminated poverty entirely. It's the getting rid of people part that is the problem.


You have a mental problem.


----------



## BenjiMac (Aug 7, 2017)

It cannot be done in the here and now.

Too many variables to control for on the individual level. Too disruptive to implement for no long term result.


----------



## Theories (Mar 24, 2016)

BenjiMac said:


> It cannot be done in the here and now.
> 
> Too many variables to control for on the individual level. Too disruptive to implement for no long term result.


Speak on ideal terms then, and announce it as such. For future sake.


----------



## Theories (Mar 24, 2016)

Epitomity said:


> I'm interested.


Firstly, answer: What causes poverty?

Answer as simplistically as possible. Remove the entirety of this simplified response and you'll have your answer on how to eradicate poverty.

Hint: Rhymes with "creed".

Possible? Someday. Far from now.


----------



## BenjiMac (Aug 7, 2017)

Theories said:


> Speak on ideal terms then, and announce it as such. For future sake.


Ideal here is very subjective. Most people would 'ideally' like there to be no poverty but the reality of what's required to get to that is far from ideal itself. Your ideal and mine is likely very different and I don't see why either of us should have the right to impose upon the other. Today's system is far from perfect but it does at least, by and large, reward those who provide the greatest value to their fellow humans.

Market economics is not exactly an 'ideal' solution - but it is the best we have yet devised, the one that has allowed humanity to advance at an astronomical rate into a world where more people die of obesity each year than die from starvation. The problem is that market economics mirrors nature and nature can be cruel. Most of us to day live in a hybridised system where we recognise the utility and success of a market economy but temper some of it's crueler characteristics via social programs and safety nets.

We all already agree, for the most part, that there is no need for people to die from deprivation in modern western democracies and so we take steps to prevent that from happening, likewise though these safety nets cannot be seen to be too generous because we are, to some extent, hardwired with a sense of fair play and most people have no wish to reward inactivity (voluntary or, sadly, otherwise) with comfort beyond the basic level.

Now, of course, some people do still die of deprivation in these states - though there is not practical reason why this should be the case. Drugs remain a big factor as many social programs require people to remain free from drug and this can be exceptionally difficult and in some cases, steps people simply do not wish to take.

So - if all this is taken to be the case, why then can we not take a further step?

Well, to return to your topic the problem is that elimiating inequity requires the surrender of one's personal liberty and freedom and creates many practical problems. This may sound alarmist but allow me to qualify;

Currently the market sets a value for goods and services. Transactions must provide value to both parties and so we negotiate via millions of individual transactions every day. Equity would require the valuation of all goods and services, and thus labour, to be set equally. The key problems here are that supply/demand are variable and then there are practical and logistical issues - going beyond capitalism, all human systems require work to be productive. this is not an issue of greed, it is a matter of survival. If we wasted time, resources and energy producing things nobody wanted or which were inferior or yielded less value on output than was expended at input... we'd starve ourselves out of existence fairly quickly.

A loaf of bread in New York does not cost the same to produce and deliver as one in Charlotte - they cannot always be priced identically.

Furthermore, not all bread is equal. If you and I were both bakers and your bread was delicious and mine was garbage, people will always choose to eat yours and more money will flow to you as a result, this enables you to expand your business and make more bread, which provided supply does not exceed demand, will increase again the money you receive and inequity grows over time.

The only way to combat this is to legally restrict your access to the means of production, which in turn decreases the quality and availability of bread for everybody and eliminates consumer choice - or for a central authority to seize all the bread and sell it on our behalf dividing the income between us. Incentivising me to produce something inferior that nobody really wants.

Humanity has survived ad flourished through division of labour - people who can bake great bread at volume are empowered to do that and rewarded for it as their labour benefits us all. This frees terrible bakers like me up to go and do other work that I can do better and that adds value for my fellow human beings.

This is just the tip of the iceboerg but suffice it to say - I don't believe I can come up with a better system than the one we have at the moment that wouldn't over time make life worse for all of us. That isnt to say the system is perfect, but what is? My main point is simply that it's incredibly hard to improve on this and exceptionally easy to mess it up beyond comprehension. We've all seen the panic that ensues when stores run low on goods for just a day or two - the veneer of comfort and civilization that surrounds us is very, very thin and when I look at human history I'd rather not roll the dice blindly.


----------



## Kanani (Jul 21, 2016)

I suppose there are a few ways to define of ending poverty while still having a sovereign government.

a) A very very high percent of the population having food, clothing, education, adequate health care and clean water. 

b) The unemployment rate, homelessness rate, and high school drop out rates are very very low.

c) The standard deviation of of household income is small, ie everyone is in the middle class because no one makes very much more than anyone else.

These overlap. 

And you can see how socialism comes in handy in solving this with a government. You want a basic household income. But then people get mad that some people "don't work as hard as them" and therefore shouldn't get paid as much. So here are my bullshit socialist ideas.

You pay your taxes, you get a citizen rate wage. You don't pay your taxes, your wage goes to shit. The government can control lots of these because they own almost all the health care and probably an alcohol monopoly because why not. You have to wait a year for your tax fraud jack up to expire. The government runs classes to help people become citizens. They can afford this because of taxes.

Taxes are high. Especially if you are a big wig. This pays for people to have health care and education. If you don't pay taxes for five years in a row you get thrown in tax jail. Tax jail is cleaning customer service because no one wants to do that. To get out of tax jail, have to be good at customer service and be humbled. Then say you're sorry to me, the socialist king. If you don't look sorry I spend you back to tax jail. 

I give up on being serious. Disagree with this ingenious idea and I will skin you, I am the socialist king, and I have solved poverty.
Whoever gives the best response is my successor even though I'll probably outlive you because I am 17 and immortal.


----------



## Epitomity (Nov 13, 2012)

Theories said:


> Firstly, answer: What causes poverty?
> 
> Answer as simplistically as possible. Remove the entirety of this simplified response and you'll have your answer on how to eradicate poverty.
> 
> ...


Creed rhymes with greed, the cause of poverty. Now explain "far from now".


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

Are we going to ignore the quickest solution? lol just kill poor people


----------



## desire machine (Jan 13, 2015)

cyberbullybuster said:


> Are we going to ignore the quickest solution? lol just kill poor people


ugh how would that help w/ anything? The rich are rich due to heirarchy in which they are on top. If you get rid of the the bottom level of a pyramid it will reduce the height of a pyramid. Killing half the worlds population would make everyone poorer.

you've been watching too many poorly written superhero movies.


----------



## desire machine (Jan 13, 2015)

Theories said:


> Firstly, answer: What causes poverty?
> 
> Answer as simplistically as possible. Remove the entirety of this simplified response and you'll have your answer on how to eradicate poverty.
> 
> ...


It doesn't make sense to me that poverty has anything to do w/ greed. Often when people act in their own financial self interest such investors or people creating businesses aimed at profits it benefits other people financially greatly, whereas selfless acts like donations can help, but I see it actually doing less to reduce poverty than people like investors and businessmen acting in their self interest do to reduce poverty.

What I believe poverty is due to is poorly structured governments that don't provide enough government employment.

Not everyone can earn a living through exchange. There's only so much exchangeable goods that everyone needs and wants. And so w/o adequate government employment poverty will exist.

So lets say it only takes 90% of population to make enough good and clothing houseing healthcare etc to provide everyone w/ a good quality of life... then 10% of the popualtion needs to earn a living doing something that is funded through another means such as donations and government programs that can fund things like scientific research and military which are better funded that way than through exchange. 

However, if that 10% isn't provided w/ funding than not only will 10% be impoverished, but the 10% of the 90% making goods will also be impoverished because they were relying on seling to that 10%... so 90-9=81% so you might think well then only 81% can, but of that 81% then making stuff means even more people aren't able to earn a living so even less than 81% ... keep going.... what ends up happening is poverty and wealth feedback on each other, so if not everyone can contribute to society you're like end up w/ lots of people not able to contribute... which is the situation we have were half the worlds population is under the poverty line...you need to have full employment in order to not have extensive poverty and if it's not physically possible for everyone on Earth to earn a living through exchange than you need adequate government employment to ensure that everyone has opportunity to earn a good living otherwise there will be extensive poverty. And I believe that is the case. Not enough government employment.

At least that is my theory.


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

desire machine said:


> ugh how would that help w/ anything? The rich are rich due to heirarchy in which they are on top. If you get rid of the the bottom level of a pyramid it will reduce the height of a pyramid. Killing half the worlds population would make everyone poorer.
> 
> you've been watching too many poorly written superhero movies.


nope, haven't seen a superhero in about 5 years.


----------



## Defiled (Apr 4, 2019)

Unfortunately, I think poverty is a part of the human condition. I think if some government or group of governments eradicated poverty through artificial manipulations of economic, fiscal, or monetary policy, poverty would inevitably rear its head again simply due to human nature. 

Free market capitalism is the best economic system devised for using a bit of jiu jitsu against our selfish, short-sighted nature, but it's still a terrible way of eradicating poverty, even in the most ideal circumstances (ie no trade wars, embargoes, or unnecessary government intervention). 

The problem isn't that we don't have the right way of organizing society, it's that humans are fundamentally unsuited to the world we've created for ourselves. This will only become more and more apparent as time goes on. 

We're better off replacing ourselves with something more adapted _and _adaptable to a digital world. Something that doesn't need to cling to silly superstitions in order to delude itself into a sense of meaning and purpose. Once that is achieved, we won't have to slaughter people by the billions as some in this thread have proposed, we can simply just stop making new people.


----------



## desire machine (Jan 13, 2015)

Defiled said:


> Unfortunately, I think poverty is a part of the human condition. I think if some government or group of governments eradicated poverty through artificial manipulations of economic, fiscal, or monetary policy, poverty would inevitably rear its head again simply due to human nature.
> 
> Free market capitalism is the best economic system devised for using a bit of jiu jitsu against our selfish, short-sighted nature, but it's still a terrible way of eradicating poverty, even in the most ideal circumstances (ie no trade wars, embargoes, or unnecessary government intervention).
> 
> ...


nah poverty is actually I think rather easily gotten rid of and inevitable. We live on a planet in which we only utilize a fraction of the arable land and resource we could be using to produce food and yet we still manage to produce enough food to feed our population twice over.... yet 1 in 7 are starving. I don't think it's impossible to imagine we can't feed everyone. It is easily feasible. This issue is poorly organized governments. ... Our governments have been continuously evolving... we used to have only kings and tyrants... now we have many much more democratic styled governments ... political power has shifted more and more towards the hands of common people and what's good for the common good, we have international laws and human rights that are largely internationally accepting ... it's a gradual improvement that people can complain still sucks and might feel like decay... but its continually evolving and improving .. there fewer and fewer wars and less violence each year, greater tolerance and as globalization and mixing of cultures continues it will become harder and harder wage ware against "others' as all the others disapear and we become a global community more and more .... having governments that work effecientlly/effectively enough so as to ensure everyone is able to earn a living, get enough food, health care, is inevitable, its just a matter of time.


----------



## desire machine (Jan 13, 2015)

Defiled said:


> it's that humans are fundamentally unsuited to the world we've created for ourselves. This will only become more and more apparent as time goes on.


I see the exact opposite. Violence and wars are decreasing, people are becoming more tolerant and wiser, more globally conscious, more environmentally conscious... we've still got a lot to improve, but society is undoubtably evolving and improving.

I would like to see it improve faster. I think embracing and encouraging improvement is the way to speed things up ... not negative cynical unimaginative pessimism. How is that helping?


----------



## TacoTach (Apr 6, 2019)

desire machine said:


> I see the exact opposite. Violence and wars are decreasing, people are becoming more tolerant and wiser, more globally conscious, more environmentally conscious... we've still got a lot to improve, but society is undoubtably evolving and improving.
> 
> I would like to see it improve faster. I think embracing and encouraging improvement is the way to speed things up ... not negative cynical unimaginative pessimism. How is that helping?


Is that you, Steven Pinker ? :biggrin:

But yeah, I agree. Most people have a pessimistic bias about the world's situation and tend to underestimate how much better it's getting, in so many respects, as compared to a few decades/centuries ago. I have no idea about all of the reasons that could explain it but, throwing in my 2 cents, I think one of them could, indeed, be some people's cynical nature. Another reason could be that, due to the the fact that global communication is more developped than ever, people are getting tons of information daily and they tend to give more weight to the negative news (because they indeed exist) than to the positive ones. In other words, some children starving to death makes a better news story than all the families rising out of poverty, even if the latter story is more frequent. In the same way, an immigrant committing a crime makes a better news story, or political talking point, than all the other ones who are perfectly integrated. You get the idea. And in our age of open communication the quantity of negative stories is even more inflated than in the past.

Yet another reason about people perceiving the world's situation as worse than it actually is could be something akin to the Nirvana fallacy, i.e some people don't compare the current situation to what actually existed in the past but to some utopia.


With all of this, I'm not saying that there are no problems (war, poverty, tyrannical regimes, even slavery...) in the world, nor even that everything's getting better (as an european I'm especially concerned about the state of some freedoms here, most notably freedom of speech), but simply that most people, especially in western countries, tend to grossly underestimate how lucky they are to live in the 21st century. Which of course doesn't mean, in any way, that things can't or shouldn't be improved.


----------



## desire machine (Jan 13, 2015)

TacoTach said:


> Is that you, Steven Pinker ? :biggrin:


lol my comment was influenced by his stuff on the decline of violence. I just regurgitate stuff other people like steven pinker came up with to sound smart


----------



## Defiled (Apr 4, 2019)

desire machine said:


> I see the exact opposite. Violence and wars are decreasing, people are becoming more tolerant and wiser, more globally conscious, more environmentally conscious... we've still got a lot to improve, but society is undoubtably evolving and improving.
> 
> I would like to see it improve faster. I think embracing and encouraging improvement is the way to speed things up ... not negative cynical unimaginative pessimism. How is that helping?





TacoTach said:


> With all of this, I'm not saying that there are no problems (war, poverty, tyrannical regimes, even slavery...) in the world, nor even that everything's getting better (as an european I'm especially concerned about the state of some freedoms here, most notably freedom of speech), but simply that most people, especially in western countries, tend to grossly underestimate how lucky they are to live in the 21st century. Which of course doesn't mean, in any way, that things can't or shouldn't be improved.


I don't doubt that by quantitative measures, things are getting better. But that's rather my point - if things are getting better, why are people dissatisfied? It's because humans are not suited to the world we've created for ourselves.


----------



## SilentNote (Dec 14, 2016)

Poverty is the flip side of wealthy. To remove one you have to remove the other as well.

No wealthy = no poverty. 

Note: this has nothing to do with standard of living.

A close parallel. Good vs Bad.

To get rid of bad, you must also remove what is good. When relative good - bad no longer exist, everything is just neutral (no good, no bad).

---------------

If the question is how to remove poor standard of living associated with poverty? Then the tl;dr is:

- Live within the limited resources of our planet. (live within your means)
- Distribute resources fairly (please don't hoard)

In this scenario when resources are readily available, and they are accessible to the whole populace, then the poor standard of living will be eliminated.

Oh also people need to have a contented attitude, not incessantly greedy.


----------



## LostHaven (Aug 12, 2016)

First we fire a rocket ship into the sun to destroy it take every source of light. If you can't see poverty it can't exist.


----------



## justAndroid (Aug 13, 2016)

Nowadays there is enough resources for everyone ,due to technology, to maintain the lowest floor of Maslov's Pyramid. Areas of the world where poverty still exists are almost always due to political reasons - there is some kind of tyrant oppressing people from getting available resources or creating their own productions - like in North Korea. Of course tyrrant is not a one person - it's usually smaller or bigger social class ,which is parasitic to other social classes. 
Another case of absolute poverty may be caused by war, but it's still inside political category.


Another problem is in not-such-oppressing countries ,where absolute poverty still exists. Reasons for that should be studied, but I think there few main reasons:
- people don't know they have opportunity to get resources or how to get them - because they come from very poor parents/enviroment and were never told about the opportunities. So they need to be educated.
- people with some disabilities, who need to be helped, because they can't exist on their own.

Another reason, which comes to my mind, which is not so obvious and may happen even in old-democratic countries is overgrow of regulations and bureaucracy - which makes any work harder and blocks many [non-criminal] opportunities of getting resources by making them illegal or overly complex to handle.


----------

