"Yann Le Du <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:

> Rich locations in cities are much more
> protected by the police against property theft than the poor locations. 

Or maybe there is just less crime being attempted in rich areas, since 
the would-be criminals are likely to be better off themselves.  After 
all, how convenient is it for poor criminals to travel a fair distance 
to rob rich folks where they live?

> Also, nearly everywhere, it's one dollar, one vote. So the rich have
> much more influence on the policies of governments than the poor. As a
> result, policies are necessarily in favor of the rich, or help them in
> their goal of staying rich.
> All policies that help the poor are only there so that these poor don't
> get too pissed off, hang the rich and party in their properties. The
> aristocrats failed there. They were decapitated.

So why do the poor let the rich get away with it?  After all, no matter 
how influential you think money is, the votes are still counted in the 
end.  I guess they are happy with the ostensibly condescending 
legislation effected by the rich.

> The fact that the system helps the poor a little bit is only a side-effect
> of that main goal : preserve the rich and make them richer.

So, in light of this, is not the libertarian political faction the true 
friend of the poor?  After all, why are business special interest 
groups any more evil than social welfare special interest groups?

> 1/ it satisfies some other rich guy(s), who's richer, or who badly want(s)
> to get richer,

What's wrong with badly wanting to be rich?  Do you mean getting rich 
by influencing public policy or inciting corruption?  To quote an old 
cliche, "the problem is not the money in politics, it's the politics 
interfering in money-making."


Sourav Mandal

Sourav K. Mandal


"... and he wondered whether the peculiar solemnity of
looking at the sky comes, not from what one contemplates,
but from that uplift of one's head."
                       ---- Fountainhead, Rand

Reply via email to