Ray E. Harrell wrote:
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
(snip) I find it remarkable how quickly that same
society retreats to the recourse of the mindlessness
of the "market" just
because the problems of coordinating social
production with individual freedom are difficult.
Sounds like the balancing of authority with the concept
of freedom that is the hallmark of the "sweet sixteen
year olds."How often the cultural insecurity and
outright shallow thought is blamed on the terrible
adolescent (society).I'm posting an article from today's
NYTimes.
From the NYTimes
September 5, 1999
Gap Between Rich and Poor Found
Substantially Wider
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
The gap between rich and poor has grown into an economic chasm so
wide that this year the richest 2.7 million Americans, the top 1
percent, will have as many after-tax dollars to spend as the bottom
100 million.
[snip]
I'm not clear whether Ray is agreeing or disagreeing with my
original posting, but as long as he's brought up this Sunday's
New York Times, I have a further comment:
The Magazine section has a couple articles relevant to this issue.
One is about teen-age actors. I didn't read it, but I'm pretty
sure it's pretty offensive to anyone except those I
like to call "free-fall free-marketeers".
The other article is one of those things
which "drives me up the wall":
"The Singer Solution to World Poverty".
Of course I think that we should contribute liberally
to charities (including those working on *controlling*
the population, not just feeding it -- a point
conspicuously missing from the article; non-existent
mouths do not need charity).
But I think there is also the issue of killing the
goose that has the potential to lay golden eggs. Singer
himself, the article says, contributes 20% of his
income to charity. I doubt that puts a very
severe crimp in the lifestyle of a Princeton
Professor -- especially one whose personal agenda
is to promote such giving (which "giving" thus
enriches Singer in a more than merely
economic way). But, as the article
timidly suggests, 20% surely is not enough: Singer
(and everybody else) should, according to his logic,
give *at least* until they have no more than the
least of the beneficiaries of their largess (of
course, the problem then arises whether they
will cease to be able to contribute so much, since
they won't keep enough of their income
to be able to continue to go to work).
It seems to me that what is needed is a
decency *and* an honesty which is not on
anyone's [acknowledged] agenda: To do
good for others *and* for oneself. I see
little reason to contribute to a world which
doesn't contribute anything for me (I've had quite
enough experience of such!) -- although
I will grant that power is often a
far more valuable asset than mere
money, and that such "poverty" as the
Pope or Mother Theresa have may, literally,
be "beyond price".
I, for
one, would certainly be glad to exchange my
computer programmer's job with Singer for
his University Professorship, and, I bet,
even after giving 20% of my new annual
income to charity, I'd still keep a good
deal more than my current gross income.
More importantly, my new job would pay me
to pursue my interests, rather than my having to
earn the money elsewise to pay for those
interests myself (having to waste one's
life to earn a living; employment
frustrating rather than facilitating
productivity; etc.).
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
---
![%THINK;[XML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
