Kemp?
I'm sorry if I have missed any of the questions you may have asked?
I suppose I was distracted by your accusations, insults, and baseless assertions made without providing any evidence or logical argument, the latter of which is, by the way, quite more frustrating than the former, actually.
"I already inquired about why this does not assist the children of the rich who have little but leisure time become much more fully developed human beings than those who have to work; and often the opposite happens."
I don't recall you bringing this up at all. My apologies for missing it.
Leisure time does not necessarily mean all play and no 'work'. To the contrary, I would argue that people would have more opportunity to pursue higher forms of intellectual achievement on a receptive level (like perceiving art, watching films, reading novels, understanding world events so as to become a more informed citizen and better participant in the democratic process, etc.), as well as on an productive level (like making art, making films, writing novels, traveling so as to witness and understand the world and its events first hand so as to become an even more valuable, intellectually contributing member of the global society). In addition, more leisure time allows for the opportunity to build personal relationships in which people find their esteem needs, sense of belonging, and even security. In general, being freed from menial labor allows one to pursue a higher-needs-fulfilling life, as they do not have to devote the majority of their day to the stress of a dead-end, menial job which is, really, far more likely to render one's intellectual development retarded (on a side note, Kemp, this is how you are supposed to use the word 'retarded').
Menial labor so often required of people in the corporate world (office workers, stock brokers, engineers, sales-people, computer programmers, etc.) is just as lacking in opportunities for them to use their higher, creative, analytical problem-solving abilities as, for instance, rice-pickers and janitors etc.. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the latter might have more opportunity for creative problem solving than those employees in rigid, top-down, pyramid structure organizations where institutionalized rigidity of the system creates an abundance of bureaucratic redundancies.
It is by the very design of such positions that leaves individuals intentionally intellectually debased, requiring of them only minimal creativity and personal challenge. Monotonousness of traditional forms of work literally works to exhaust the individual due to exceedingly menial and mundane tasks, over long and difficult hours in dehumanizing working conditions (do you have any personal experiences of working in dehumanizing conditions, Kemp?). The crime in all of this is that such a system is maintained only by having a scarcity of employment in society at large, else no one would voluntarily fill the positions. In order to maintain this scarcity of employment, and high demand for those positions, a scarcity of basic needs is maintained throughout the lower echelons of the social strata.
Thus, Kemp, my good, good friend, I must disagree with you. In fact, you are mistaken. Menial employment is far more intellectually debasing than leisure time.
Besides, it is erroneous to conclude that just because an ignorant and foolish few do not take the opportunity to strive for the fulfillment of higher needs, even when the avenue to that opportunity is so apparent to them, there should not remain opportunity for the worldly, commonsensical many.
