From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon Feb 04 2002 - 06:05:39 MST
Olga Bourlin wrote:
>
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
> > Miriam English wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > > So goes the litany of evils that so many Americans seem to project upon
> the
> > > kind of mild, almost disinterested, social responsibility that seems to
> > > color Oz.
> > >
> > > You know what is the strangest thing? The people who foam most strongly
> at
> > > the mouth when screeching about the evils of society are those who have
> > > benefitted most from it. Those who have been born into the richer
> classes,
> > > who have gained their wealth and knowledge from countless generations
> > > before them, demand that they alone be recognised as being the creators
> of
> > > their good fortune and that they are damned if they will share it with
> > > anybody else.
> >
> > Can you prove otherwise? Government has always operated more as a
> > hindrance to individuals attaining wealth than a help. How, in fact, did
> > government give Bill Gates $60 billion? How has it given Harvey, or
> > Brent, or any other successful extropian their wealth. Every one of them
> > will demonstrate how they worked their butts off for it.
>
> Does Bill really need $60 billion? Sheesh, won't a paltry couple of billion
> do anymore?
How does this question pertain to the debate at hand? We were debating
whether government helps or hinders people getting rich. "Need" is
completely irrelevant when it comes to exercising ones natural human
rights. You don't "Need" to freely speak, or vote, or live free of
government searches, or own a home, or a car, or a toothbrush, do you?
Explain how you have a greater need of these things than any private
citizen does to make as much money as they are honestly capable of doing
through their own work and creativity.
Using "need" to rationalize away property rights is the hallmark of
socialist confiscatory-think.
>
> > While I don't deny that there are those who make a career of feeding at
> > the public trough, and some of the smart ones even get rich at it, but
> > the overwhelming majority do so just to avoid doing real work.
>
> Granted, again, this is from my own personal experience ... but it is the
> overwhelming majority of rich people I've known who have avoided doing real
> work and it is the middle class or poorer people I've observed who have done
> the most work, often to ease the life for the "poor" rich blokes.
You only see how rich people behave once they've gotten rich (and only
those who you KNOW are rich). The vast majority of the wealth in the US
is self-made. Far more millionaires earned it themselves than inherited
it. Are you then claiming that slavery is wrong, but only when applied
to a person's first $30,000 of income? Enslaving the labor of self made
rich people is okay?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:11 MST