The question implies a zero-sum model where one group’s needs are mutually exclusive with another group’s, which isn’t always the case. If we’re fighting over limited resources, it’d certainly make sense for greater people to have resources, than fewer. Otherwise, in a post-scarcity world, the question is how systems can be reworked so that everyone’s needs can be met.
The slogan might also require a bunch of annoying semantic arguments over what “needs” are. For instance, if we’re comparing the top 1% to the other 99%, can we really call the demands and expectations of the 1% “needs”? The rich aren’t going to die if they’re taxed a bit more.
The question implies a zero-sum model where one group’s needs are mutually exclusive with another group’s, which isn’t always the case. If we’re fighting over limited resources, it’d certainly make sense for greater people to have resources, than fewer. Otherwise, in a post-scarcity world, the question is how systems can be reworked so that everyone’s needs can be met.
The slogan might also require a bunch of annoying semantic arguments over what “needs” are. For instance, if we’re comparing the top 1% to the other 99%, can we really call the demands and expectations of the 1% “needs”? The rich aren’t going to die if they’re taxed a bit more.