That's cuz we're NOT "brothers." Or "sisters."
At best, we're very, very, very distant cousins.
We can 'get along'--cooperate voluntarily for mutual benefit--in groups of no more than about 500, at MOST, related by relatively close kinship, which compete with OTHER such groups fopr available resources.
Past that number, some sort of external "authority" is necessary to ensure even partial compliance and cooperation from members of exogenous groups. That "authority" is the name we ascribe to "civilization."
In larger groups, discord unto violence is common, and requires "social" structures to restrain it.
Fuzzies: What, is Saturday the day for fuzzy, warm, impractical sentiments?
First, MLK; now Teddy Kennedy.
Another loverly sentiment.
One which is honored FAR more in the breech than in the living.
If the Bosses paid a "living" wage, they'd lose leverage with workers.
All "industrial/labor" relations are about having and keeping leverage over your workers.
If you keep 'em desperate, you keep 'em compliant.
So, as long as "capitalism" is the dominant economic episteme, no Bosses will WANT to pay their easily replaceable workers a "living" wage," cuz it would allow 'em to be comfortable. Bosses HATE comfortable workers...
A Moment of Malthus: Woody thinkz (in a Malthusian moment):
As a "practical matter," eradicating poverty would soon add another billion or more starving souls to the planet's roster, propel us faster down the road to climate catastrophe, and increase demand for the energy, as well as the gimmicks, tchotchkes and gewgaws the production of which NOW, currently, threatens our very existence.
Stop Making Shit Up! The last two conditions effectively eliminate the gun-goons and the fundie fucktards fom the conversation.
NOT that that's a BAD thing, necessarily.
In fact, I quite approve.
If you're gonna contribute to the public discourse, it's best that you not be a raving loon...