We haven't received enough votes with gender data to show this graph yet.
We will show the graph as soon as we have enough votes!
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Take healthcare and safety out? How about education, e.g., libraries, schools, etc.? People have lots of "needs" beyond the basic needs of food and shelter.
This question raises an interesting issue for me. Our current system of land ownership is fairly modern...in the old days, in England, there were common lands held in trust for the public, where people could grow food, because people had a right to live. The old fuedal laws basically stated that loyalty was returned with protection. An overlord might forbid his peasants to carry weapons, but he might also be forced to hunt for them in a bad winter.
By the mid 1700's those common lands started disappearing...just in time for the industrial revolution and workhouses.
Our approach today is to insist that everyone support themselves...yet I can't think of any public lands nearby where I am allowed to grow food to support myself. It thereby forces everyone into an economic system they may not be suited for nor desire to participate in. Just a thought.
United States
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyOK. Take healthcare and safety OUT, for this discussion. Needs like: housing, food, communications. A more "equal" distribution of things.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyTake healthcare and safety out? How about education, e.g., libraries, schools, etc.? People have lots of "needs" beyond the basic needs of food and shelter.
Meh...not really, when you think about it...clean water, certainly.
Nope. That's communism. I'd go nuts in a toilet paper line.
They already do for some things....
This question raises an interesting issue for me. Our current system of land ownership is fairly modern...in the old days, in England, there were common lands held in trust for the public, where people could grow food, because people had a right to live. The old fuedal laws basically stated that loyalty was returned with protection. An overlord might forbid his peasants to carry weapons, but he might also be forced to hunt for them in a bad winter.
By the mid 1700's those common lands started disappearing...just in time for the industrial revolution and workhouses.
Our approach today is to insist that everyone support themselves...yet I can't think of any public lands nearby where I am allowed to grow food to support myself. It thereby forces everyone into an economic system they may not be suited for nor desire to participate in. Just a thought.
I would go crazy if all my needs were met by the government. Heaven on Earth is Hell. But I know my answer would change if I lived in Ethiopia.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyWho wouldn´t?
If my government is going to support an economy that requires a huge underclass, then yes, it should support its citizens.