SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (487515)11/5/2003 4:58:42 PM
From: Johannes Pilch  Read Replies (2) of 769670
 
How likely is THAT? (The 'rich' are humans after all... just ;like the rest of us... subject to the same weaknesses and frailties.)

That is not the point. The point is, if I acquire lots of wealth honestly and you have absolutely nothing, I have done nothing wrong and owe you nothing at all.

It seems we ALL 'owe' taxes to the government.

Only because the government gives us goods in exchange. That is called "trade." Outside of trade, no one owes anyone a farthing - even if the whole world is starving to death.

Some go further than just that obligation... and believe in the moral imperative of leaving their country a better place than they found it.

And this is religious crap. The fact is, many other people validly think that by acquiring wealth, they are indeed leaving the country a better place than they found it. For example, I may legitimately think that as I acquire wealth and keep it from you, I may protect the country from your penchant to take wealth and fund the murder of children and "art" that insults the moral convictions I esteem. I am actually doing a better thing than what I think would happen had you more of my money. Quite legitimate.

I believe that would meet the definition of a sick society though [if 1% of people owned everything]"

You may think this, but the 1% may well not. Your opinion certainly does not trump theirs in any objective sense. There is just nothing wrong with being wealthy and not giving any of it to you-- nothing wrong with it at all.

It is unlikely Democracy would exist anymore under those conditions of Plutocracy.

Democracy may well exist. Even so, no one has a right to remove the inalienable rights of others simply to protect some crappy notion you have of "Democracy." Democracy does not depend upon my having to give anyone a single dime.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News