To be rich is the opposite of being poor?

This is a clear example of how the culture, the language and the concepts deceive to us. To be poor is not to be able to fulfil our basic necessities. To be rich is not the opposite, so that to fulfil ours basic necessities only transforms to us into people of middle-class, very far from being rich. The statistics that each government makes demonstrate that in each country there are many families who cover their basic necessities and at at the same time there are very few rich ones.

Why this error of concepts appears, in which what seems to be the opposed thing is not really the opposite thing?

It is produce by the facti that the poverty does not exist, in a practical sense. The wealth yes. One cannot have poverty, is something intangible, is a quality, is not an object. Nevertheless the wealth is an object, is measurable, quantifiable, it is measured in dollars or houses or cars or in… There are many forms to measure the wealth actually. The poverty is simply a quality, the one of not reaching to cover the basic necessities with feeding, house, clothes, education and others.

And what are the consequences of this fundamental difference?

Beacuase the poverty, being a quality or a condition, has much better press than the wealth. To the poor men in some countries everything is allowed, including the crime, by its own condition of poor men. The rich ones are punished in any case, considering them bad people by the only fact of being rich, persecuting them in different forms, in almost all the countries. And are crime suspicions or Mafia organized is believed like origin of its fortune.

And what other consequences exist?

They are many. There are governments that opress the masses with the pretext to defend the poor men, and other governments who tolerate crimes or foment them with the pretext of defending the freedom of people. Those that say to defend the poor men make them poorer, whereas those who say to defend the freedom, still put below all the liberties the freedom of commerce, confusing the population.

What we would have to change?

Only our mind. If a rich one made fortune with legal means and their own capacity, is worthy of admiration, emulation and respect. If a rich one made its fortune with no legal means, he is gangster like those which robs to eat. We have to make an agreement in the society in what is crime is crime, and criminals are criminals no matter if are rich or poor. Of course the poor man can have excuses in front of a judge, but it does not stop being a delinquent. When the entire world understands this law, will be more rich people and and less poor ones.


3 responses to “To be rich is the opposite of being poor?

  1. Pingback: » To be rich is the opposite of being poor?

  2. There is obviously a lot to know about this. There are some good points here.

    I’m Out! ūüôā

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s