Today's false trichotomy is bought to you by the number 2 and the letter Q.

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1416969]

Comments

[andlosers.livejournal.com]

(Answered "no" to the last question because I'm currently between contracts ...)

[meihua.livejournal.com]

want <> need <> have taken / am taking / will take

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

Likewise - in education.

I might feel differently in full time employment (but then I've only ever earned less than 13/14k in full time employment and I think its just enough to live on in Edinburgh, if it was 30k I might take a cut).

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

When I worked in the hospital full time - I would have done it for free I loved it that much. So maybe there is a bit of a socialist in me ;)

...but if it was something I hated, I'd probably want whatever reward I could get for it all to myself!

[randomchris.livejournal.com]

It depends what you mean more and less of. Most people's lives contain trade-offs between health, free time, money, material possessions, relationships and enjoyment. I think there are contexts in which any one of them could be traded-off for another. Generally when I want more of something I expect this to result in having less of something else.

[andlosers.livejournal.com]

*nod*, I'd drop my last salary, but probably not my first one.

That is an awesome user icon by the way.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

I want (A LOT) less of most *things* I have.
I want to have less things* for *my* benefit - benefit to others would be a side-effect.

KEEP:
Flat, laptop, phone, money, boat (and all its equipment/supplies), mp3 collection, guitar, tools, some books (though I'd love to solve them like mp3s solved music).

Steven isn't a thing but I'll keep him too :-)

A bit of land that I could grow food on would be cool to have.

the rest? clutter, sheer clutter.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

by money I mean my savings/company money/ISA, not my current income.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

"more than they have" can cover anything from open source software to bizjets. Both are classed as tangible goods, but their environmental impact is radically different (as is our ability to provide everybody with as much of them as they might want).

I can envisage a world where everybody has as much software (or IP -- movies, books, films, poems, whatever) as they want, but I can't envisage a world where everybody has a bizjet.

Thus, I consider the doctrine that "we [in the developed world] all need to get by with less than we currently have, for the long-term benefit of everyone [worldwide]" to be flawed at best, and at worst bone-headedly wrong, much like mediaevial theological arguments over angels, pins, and dancing -- because it doesn't distinguish between resource constrained products and stuff that isn't so constrained.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm making certain assumptions in ticking 'yes' in the final question. We struggle to pay the rent/bills on the money we have at present. However, in any rational model whereby us getting by with less benefits others (unless you just mean giving lots to charity) would be heavily socialist. In said model, I would be (I think) in the bottom section, and would actually be better off for my situation rather than worse (unless I was under the current government where the 'poor' are those earning, as far as I can tell, nowhere near enough to live on). However I hope, sooner rather than later, to be in a rather more comfortable position, and it's vital to my politics that I be just as willing to part with more of my more generous income when I'm more affluent as I am to take from the rich when I'm poor.

Alternatively, for me to be in a situation where me giving up part of my income would benefit others long term, we would need to be in a much poorer country, where I'm actually earning what would be considered to be an above average wage. In that country, I have what there might be considered luxuries such as the internet, a mobile phone, and an occasional DVD/luxury food habit. Again, according to my own principles, if I am, even in my impoverished state, financially at the top end of that society, then yes, I'd be prepared to pay higher taxes to see everyone live comfortably.

That being said, I'd probably get outta dodge at the first opportunity. But my principles don't preclude that.

[andrewducker]

Well, there is the possibility that we can sustain our current intake long-term without fucking up the planet for everyone, but I haven't seen anything which shows it's currently possible.

I'm still vaguely hopeful that we'll come up with the technology to do so, but not as massively so as I was a few years ago.

[andrewducker]

Interesting that you feel beholden to poorer people in the same bureaucratic entity as yourself, but not to other people on the same planet.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Oh, in a global society I would apply my principle globally. And I would like there to be a global society. But while there isn't, I'm better off somewhere with a decent economy.

[andrewducker]

How is society not global? I buy goods made by people from everywhere, there's a vast amount of movement, etc.

It's not identical everywhere, but I can't see how a global society would be.

We're all just people, after all.

[drplokta]

You forgot "Many of the biggest advances made by humanity were caused by people wanting more than they had"

Yeah

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

Mostly I want more free time than I have, and slightly more living space.

The "more" in question two, that which is helping to screw up the world, is "more for its own sake" or "more in order to fill the void of meaning".

And no, I pay enough tax, make enough sacrifices. I'll go without when the rich pay their taxes, and the underclasses stop popping out babies.

[andrewducker]

I didn't forget that, it just wasn't part of what I was asking. If you want to run your own poll, feel free :->

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

[x] I am a Tory capitalist, nyah!

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

...if it's not identical everywhere you need to split it up to be able to manage it properly. By saying your second bit, you've essentially answered your first.

[andrewducker]

Which would mean your answer to question (1) is yes, to question (3) is no, but doesn't clarify your position on (2).

[andrewducker]

Yes, it has to be split up to manage it, but that doesn't mean that society, overall, is not global.

That's like saying that society doesn't cover the UK, because things are different in Birmingham and Cornwall.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

My position on 2 is that of drplokta. Your poll only tells half the story so I didn't fill it in as a protest. :)

[andrewducker]

You only answer polls that sum up the entirety of the universe?

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

No, I answer polls that aren't biased and thus will give an unfair view of things.

(Also, the first statement you make in your first comment is unreasonable. I want more than I have, sure - I'm the wrong side of £12,000 in debt due to university and I won't lie, it'd be nice to be able to get rid of that. I sometimes don't have enough money to pay the bills and eat, it's also nice to think one day I shall have a job that can do that for me as opposed to a student loan. So, yes, the answer to (1) is yes, but that's got almost nothing to do with my politics and everything to do with me being a poor student. Oh, and I want the new Ghostbusters game that's coming out.)

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

No, it isn't, because you're using society to mean that everyone in the world would have to share, which, if you have to split the mangement up, cannot happen very easily. It'd be a lot easier to share within managements and then have the managements sort out trading.