Society & Lifestyle >
Personal Morals & Values
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs it better to be poor and free or manipulated and wealthy?
Results so far:
| Poor | 83% | 15 votes | Total: 18 votes | |
| Rich | 17% | 3 votes |
Poor
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesFor me it is better to be poor and free. I am assuming here that wealthy refers to riches of a material kind and that poor does not mean abject poverty. Most people see poor as a place they have to escape from or loath. Very few wealthy people see wealthy as such a place.
For them the manipulation comes with the territory and they accept this and may even expect it. Their time will come, and they will do the manipulating of their own. It is part of the wealthy territory to have to, or to have to be seen to, manipulate. While the poor do not have to be seen to manipulate, and it may be less prevalent with them, it is also no less obvious that for them manipulation is a given. They are manipulated through lack of education, financial or price constraint etc. Yet there is a freedom that the wealthy do not enjoy.
It is a human nature thing. Some will prefer one side not because of the material or physical attributes as others will choose the other side irrespective of the material or physical attributes. It depends on the type of person you are. Your personal character, your strengths and weakness, and most of all you world view. The poor have many who love to be manipulated and to manipulate. They play the same games as the wealthy and have their own power struggles. The greater freedom, however, comes with being poor.
That's why I say for me it is better to be poor and free than to be manipulated and wealthy. There is that greater degree of basic personal freedom that comes with being poor. Obscurity; less responsibilities or better reason to ignore, or choose social responsibility; choice of company; and choices that effect personal well being. The ability to re-locate or travel or even change career without the extra upheaval the wealthy 'enjoy' despite their money. Money or wealth equals strings.
If your nature is one of dependency it would be better to be manipulated and wealthy if you put material attributes of life as a high priority. If your nature is independent or confident, it would be better to be poor and free, provided that wealth is not the overriding aim of your life.
It is better to be poor and free than manipulated and wealthy as long as you are truly happy with it. You can become whatever you want. There is only one way, up.
Learn more about this author, Hephzibah And Beulah Ben'Adam.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Rich
The notion of the glorious nature of freedom is one which seems to pervade just about every demographic of society. It is an idealistic notion founded upon superstitions, fears of oppression uses wrongly and some modern social values. Freedom is one of those things that should not be glorified, because like containment, it is not good or bad. As such it is obviously better to be rich and controlled than poor and free.
However it must not be forgotten that poor and free is an impossible state. A poor person has no money to buy things, do things, etc beyond a small amount, and as such is hardly free. Whereas a rich person has money to buy things and do things to a far greater amount. The richer you are the freer you are. So at least in the present state of society the question should be 'Is it better to be poor and manipulated or rich and free?' and it is not hard to see why the latter becomes the obvious choice.
As it is thus impossible to be both poor and free (or relatively so compared with richer people) in today's society, one must look to a theoretical society in which poor people can exist freely. Such a society would have to take one of a number of forms, the one that seems most obvious being one where the upper classes, by way of their own social norms and religious or cultural systems values, have become entrapped by their own powerful culture and are now little more than a cult worshipping past leaders. Thus they are rich but tied to their palace of worship to the aforesaid leaders and if they left they would be considered blaspheming the Bill Gates and Henry Fords of the past.
Whereas in this theoretical society the peasant class live in a free way. To do so requires that they not farm, for this ties them down to a particular spot and makes them dependant on it. Therefore they must be nomadic peasants, herding sheep or living by hunting and gathering. But somebody must feed the upper class in their palace of worship. Therefore only some of the peasants could be free, others must be villeins tied to the palace for life.
Even in this theoretical situation it would be better to be rich. Being enclosed within the confines of a palace is alright when one considers that without it peasants fall ill more often, and with inferior medical treatment, and also the peasants lead a more active outdoor life, which exposes them to more hardship and pain. Whereas the rich people worshipping the industrialists of four centuries ago live in comfortable chambers, luxuriously furnished and with views over the peasants farmlands. They eat good food, drink good wine and sing songs all night long.
Thus it is obvious that it is better to be rich and manipulated rather than poor and free, but of course it must not be forgotten that in today's society or indeed in any society of the past I am aware of, the poor are manipulated and the rich free, relatively speaking.
Learn more about this author, Mark Waybill.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
