From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:05:27 GMT

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.  

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

And BTW, who is talking in abstractions with your silly proposed tax system?

>
>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.

>
>Close to home, when the government creates an economically empowered class,
>and that group advances at the expense of all others, do we call time out
>and say, well they EARNED it, and proceed to protect their god given right
>not only to the accumulated wealth but to the system of empowerment?

No, out of context it sounds like that (in fact it sounds pretty funny
out of context), but it isn't.  I said 2 or 3 times in the post that
the current system is wrong and needs to be changed to be more just
(higher taxes on the upper income groups, less rich-only loopholes,
and so on). 

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 know out of context it sounds like a staunch reactionary position, but I think
it is not esp. when taken in context.  What happened in the past and under the
law should not be declared criminal when at the time it was not (I mean what 
kind of country would we have if we retroactively applied our laws?)

>
>You appear to be much more interested in abstract ideas than reality or
>fairness.

No, I think you took my statements out of context.  I hope my comments above
clarified it a bit.

BTW- thanks for jumping in!

-- 
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine         |These opinions are the opinions of the majority of |
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu | space aliens currently in residence in the USA.   |
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8419 alt.politics.clinton:16733 alt.politics.bush:13688 alt.politics.perot:5403 talk.politics.misc:59404