From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 13:16:19 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.  

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

I disagree.  Whether something is earned or not has to do with whether
one's posession of the earned thing derives from one's having created
ir or traded for it.  If the government (or a common thief) takes your
property without your permission, it was not earned by the bureaucrats or by
the thief.

>>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.

"Debunked"?  What is so unfair about allowing people to trade with one
another and keep the results?  Explain exactly what you think is unfair about
this.

Perhaps you would like to try to justify the "new" trickle-down theory
whereby the government takes away our money against our will and invests
it so as to cause more to "trickle down" to the rest of us.

>>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). 

How in the world can you say that it is in ANY sense "fair" for the upper
income groups to pay even more taxes?  They already pay a tremendous amount,
MUCH more than their fair share.  What kind of cockeyed definition of
"justice" are you you using anyway?

>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.

Just what kinds of "banditry" are you talking about and what percentage of
"the rich" do you think engaged in such activities?

The single biggest "rule" that keeps the lower classes from becoming
business owners is the high rate of taxation and business regulation which
keeps the entry costs associated with starting a business so high that
very few people ever find themselves in a position to raise enough money 
to start a business.  You can't fix that kind of situation with employer-paid
medical insurance laws, "family leave" laws, etc.

>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?)

I agree that we shouldn't prosecute retroactively, but that's not the same
thing as defining justice as being necessarily identical to the law.  Achieving
justice ought to be a goal of the courts, but justice is no more defined
by the behaviors of the courts than frictionlesness is defined by how much
friction there is in a certain engine.

--Brian

Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa