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.
Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bald Eagle who wrote (11367)4/30/2002 5:04:09 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
Don't like Bill Gates? Buy Linux.

There is quite a significant difference between having more money than someone else and murdering them or their families or threatening to do so or using physical force against them.

And how about the right of people to the fruits of their own labor? Shall it be confiscated by their neighbors to prevent them from becoming too uppity?



To: Bald Eagle who wrote (11367)4/30/2002 5:07:27 PM
From: Poet  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 21057
 
I think you have a point there, BE.



To: Bald Eagle who wrote (11367)4/30/2002 9:19:57 PM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 21057
 
By and large, the masses are not dominated and controlled by the rich. Power is too diffuse, and the rich are busy with their businesses and country clubs. The masses are under the simple exigency of circumstance: they do not have a lot of money to do as they please. Only if you think that it could be otherwise, and that the rich are preventing mass wealth, could one claim that the rich are doing anything nefarious to the masses. Since it seems unlikely that the equalization of wealth would produce millionaires, the masses will always be limited by circumstance. One could make the case that the rich exist to provide jobs, in fact. Most of their wealth is tied up in assets like stocks and bonds, which fund productive enterprise. The rest buys things, thus providing markets for goods and services that might otherwise die out. After all, the wealthy are the one's who commission the great art, sustain the massive wine cellars, and go to tailors. I am sure that the tailor, the vintner, and the painters are glad of the patronage. Without comparative affluence, most of the Caribbean would be even more destitute, for the islands depend on tourism, and thus, for the most part, the upper middle class and rich. Beyond that, the wealthy fund a good deal of the "good works" of the nation. Andrew Carnegie built free libraries throughout the United States; Andrew Mellon essentially donated the National Gallery of Art, including its nucleus collection, to the United States; and the rich give to all kinds of charities beyond cultural foundations, for medical research, scholarships, and many other needs. But finally, the rich are often the one's who took the initiative, and the risks, in creating those industries that have changed the face of the nation, and even of the globe. Insofar as they have been dynamic in their leadership, far from dominating and controlling the masses, they have empowered them, creating jobs and making it possible for someone of even modest income to travel thousands of miles, wear clothing of some comfort and distinction, be entertained at the flick of a button, be freed of drudgery to pursue schooling, instead of being sent to the fields in puberty, and so forth.........