On 1/6/2013 8:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jan 2013, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Don't take this too much literally.
I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It
*looks* nice, but it generates poverty.
Oops, too late! I already gave my kids several hundred thousand dollars in services
and education.
If you offer services and education to your kids, that's rather cool and nice. That's
not charity, it is more a sort of investment.
Charity would be more like given them hundred thousand dollars comma.
Again, I try to convey an idea by example, but in the human affair, all rules have
exceptions. (Except taxes apparently).
But examples can be misleading; which is why I cited a counter example. I think the point
is not that charity is bad, but how it is given makes the difference. Often it is bad to
just give poor people money, but then this generalized to be an example showing that you
should not try to help them at all, that it will just be bad for them. This is a
comforting conclusion, since most people would rather keep their wealth to themselves and
with it they can feel morally superior in doing so.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
