I appologize for the slipup... We have taken this offline, but I slipped and didn't update the TO: field to this older response. But here is a LINUX just to keep everyone happy. Regards, Simmons ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: J.A. Simmons V <simmonsj at redkeep.com> Date: Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 17:30 Subject: Re: [tclug-list] OT: I'm thinking of.... To: TCLUG Mailing List <tclug-list at mn-linux.org> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 17:58, Mike Miller <mbmiller+l at gmail.com<mbmiller%2Bl at gmail.com> > wrote: > I agree with Dan Taylor. That is the problem. You cannot get rid of > government altogether, but if you weaken government sufficiently (as > Grover Norquist has said -- so that he can drown it in the bathtub), then > other very unpleasant things will happen. Government will be controlled > by powerful corporations and super-rich individuals for their personal > gain. > > Now I am not saying anything about weakening the government in the sense of preventing it from defending its citizens, and prosecuting the guilty. I am saying that the government has no business in personal affairs, i.e. trade between individual citizens. I admit to and recognize the fact that companies are buying favors from politicians, and that is wrong. It is a dirty politician who would trade their morals and values to a company that throws money at said politician. Such a politician should be expelled from office by their constituents for breaking the social contract that the people voted on. > I also note, in line with Dan's argument, that whenever I argue for higher > taxes on the rich, my so-called "conservative" or "libertarian" friends > will ask "why do you hate the rich?" They want to argue about the > goodness of the rich. Sorry, I don't hate them and I don't think they are > "good" either. I think that way of thinking about the problem is a waste > of time. I just want them to pay higher taxes and maintain a more equal > share of the wealth and power with the rest of us. That's all. > > You catagorize an entire class of citizen due to their income level. What values do you base this decision to label them as not "good"? Gates is currently, voluenteeraly giving away huge chunks of cash to charities. Is he still "not good"? Does a person need to be a pennyless bum before you will label them "good"? You want to steal from the rich to provide for you, but what about those poorer then you? Do you agree that they should steal from you to provide for themselves? Because let us not kid ourselves, this act is stealing: they are taking something that they did not work for, that they do not deserve, that is not theirs, by force. You want a more equal share of the wealth, but are you giving the equal share of the work? What about those on welfare? Businessmen used their mind to earn that money. They paid workers to use their brawn to build a product that the upper management turned around and sold. Do you believe that you should be given free electricity because you cannot build a nuclear reactor, but someone else did? > If I could save $10 million per year, it would only take me 6,000 years to > amass as much wealth as Bill Gates. If I could only save $60,000 per > year, and I can't even do that!, then it would take me 1,000,000 to save > up as much as Bill Gates. Or maybe I could put together a team of 10,000 > people, each saving $60,000 per year, then it would only take my team 100 > years to amass as much wealth as Bill Gates. But the thing is, this OK > because Bill Gates is so "good" that he deserves to have super-massive > wealth and power and I'm, I guess, just not that good. So it's fair. > > Bill Gates in not so "good" that he deserves to have all that money. Gates used his mind to start a company, his resources to build that company, and then used his mind to drive that company to success. Do you think that you can do what Bill did? Why don't you? Do you think you could make a company as big as EDS (before HP bought it). Ross Perot started EDS with an idea and $1000. Microsoft has similar humble beginnings. Do you have a $1000? How about $5000? Do you think you could save up for a year and get the needed current dollar equivalent? If you also have an idea,then you to can be rich, and do what ever you want with your money at that point. (Which Bill is currently giving away tons of cash for charity work voluntarily. Is he still bad?) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20100824/f5cd3968/attachment.htm