Text 3292, 94 rader
Skriven 2006-07-04 13:07:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3765.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <OMmdnXiHUs5KcjTZnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <thqba2d482iutivqsm0hmuh13fi3b4o73i@4ax.com>

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:4jlja2tom60easuocstqus9pmb9qgjkd1q@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 20:26:07 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ffjga295ri9tl9b9rqa2f8u09hv08r4s8u@4ax.com...
>
>>> I daresay most wealthy people who have built up companies received
>>> plenty of rewards during their lifetimes.
>>
>>Largely irrelevent and entirely subjective.  A person may have spent their
>>entire life building up a business and never taken the time to enjoy their
>>success.   You would consider their reward sufficient, they would suggest
>>it's not your place to judge their rewards or their life.  Do you also
>>consider the middle class guy that wants to pass something to his kids as
>>having had enough reward (compared to the poor)?
>
> I'm not sure you understand the nature of wealth. The rich have,
> almost by definition, more goods and services than they could possibly
> want for their actual value. There is no more reward possible, other
> than the miserly masturbatory one of counting one's money.

Your assumption is that the wealthy don't have other goals than material 
wealth.  Sometimes they want to get involved in new ventures.  One of my 
friends spends significant amounts of money investing in medical research. 
If he had more money, he would branch out into other areas of interest too.

>
>>I think there is a fundemental difference of thought in what money is. 
>>You
>>*seem* to think that money belongs to the govt and the govt allows you to
>>keep some of the fruits of your labor as long as it's not too much. 
>>Others
>>believe they earned the money through their labor and pay the govt taxes 
>>in
>>order to provide for the services that the govt should be responsible for.
>>If you think that what you work for is yours, many resent the idea of
>>someone else coming along and telling you that you don't have a right to 
>>it
>>any more.
>
> I don't think either is true. The government can take all your money,
> if it does so in a lawful manner

Which would be creating a slave.

Is 75% taxes creating a 75% slave?

> , or it can take none. I would suggest
> that in most cases it would be unwise to do either, since people
> without money go hungry (taxation in the beleaguered late Roman Empire
> was so high that some people were forced to sell themselves into
> slavery) while people without government are reduced to savagery.
>
>>I suppose that if my parents died (hopefully not for a long time!) and 
>>left
>>me their house and their possessions, I would resent the govt coming along
>>and saying "You don't need anything else... it's too nice for you.  Get
>>out....it's ours."
>
> But they don't.

No, but in previus discussions with you, you often make reference to
wealth that a person doesn't "need."  Since I have a life of my own and 
don't
*need* the money, would you then say the govt should take it all?

>
>>> I think it's just a matter of "the
>>> hereditary rich and powerful deserve the right to live off the labor
>>> of others, despite having contributed nothing, but the families of
>>> hard working poor people deserve to live in cars."
>>
>>Why is it so many people are perfectly content to pass wholesale judgement
>>on others?
>
> This from someone who a few posts back called me a Communist?


************* Check again...that wasn't me. *****************

Good time to stop. :)
                     
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)