From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 13:31:01 GMT

In article <BxKFp4.EIG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <lg2innINNpfm@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>>|>Brent Irvine writes (think this is his):

>>|>>When a government sets up the rules for obtaining wealth, and someone plays
>>|>>by those rules and does well in obtaining wealth, we can safely say that
>>|>>that person EARNED the wealth (if laws were broken, you can then say what you
>>|>>implied - stealing, but only then).

>>This is the funniest thing I have read in many a week.  Are you saying that
>>if the government set up a rule where I pay no taxes but everyone else is
>>taxed 100% of everything they make over $25,000, then my increased wealth over
>>time can be said to be EARNED?  And if I evenually accumulated enough wealth
>>that I was the only person who could contribute to campaigns, thus able to
>>continue this obviously fair taxation system, then this is EARNED influence?

>If those are the rules, you obtained them legally, therefore (the discussion
>was trying to come up with a definition for EARNED) you EARNED your money,
>and did not have it taken away.  

I disagree.  If the money was simply given to a recipient (say, food stamp
recipients or Chrysler) then he did not earn it!  It may be LEGAL, but it's
not JUST.

>Yes, it is earned, it is totally unfair to everyone else, but it is earned.

What's unfair about allowing people to trade without interference or fraud?
Does the fact that some will be rich and others poor make everything in that
system unfair?  I think it is QUITE fair that I have money and the panhandler
outside doesn't.  I EARNED that money and he did not.

>>Are you saying that if the government decides slavery is legal for all
>>persons with red hair, that you will have EARNED the right to go and
>>enslave a person with red hair (assuming you don't have red hair)?  Or that
>>if you do have red hair, you should not fight becuase you have EARNED the
>>right to be a slave?

>I never said that you should lie down and accept what is passed down.  In 
>fact, if you had read the whole post (yes, i know it got kind of confusing),
>you should have picked up that I felt that while the Wall-Street movers
>and shakers had been allowed to EARN their fortunes via favorable rules,
>I felt it was unfair and should be changed in a way that did not rely
>upon the debunked "trickle down" garbage.

What's so unfair about being allowed to earn a living?  Who is being
unfairly treated?  The uninvolved masses?  The customer in the trades?

>What I was trying to convey above was that we have no right to brand those that
>made out like bandits in the 80's criminals if they played by the rules.  Those
>rules need to be changed to give everyone a better shot at wealth, not just
>those that already have it.

I should point out that even if you could show why being allowed to trade 
freely is unfair, and that a lot of people made money unfairly in the 1980's,
there are a lot of us (myself inlcuded) who are making lots of money
in the 1990's.  Should we be punished in compensation for the "sins" of the
80's too?  What's just about that?


--Brian