Chris wrote:
>Harry,
>
>you wrote:
> > If your father was particularly skilled in management and built his company
> > to the top with hard work and venturesome risk-taking, would you object to
> > his leaving you $50 million when he died?
>
>Yes -- what for? If I'm as skilled as he is, I don't need the money.
>And if I'm a silly cretin, I don't deserve the money.
Why don't you take it and give it to the starving, unhealthy, uneducated,
people you mention next. Personally, I would take it, raise a glass or two
to the old man - and get my third Jaguar (the one I'll use for shopping at
the supermarket.
> > HARRY: Should anyone else object?
>
>Yes, the people who starve, cannot afford medial aid, education etc. because
>they lack the money.
Why should they object? My father contributed to society $50 million worth
of worthwhile things and got back $50 million.Seems to me the account is
closed. The $50 million was his to do with what he wishes. I'm glad he gave
it to me.
> > HARRY: Is it a problem?
>
>Yes, because money doesn't fall from the sky. The surplus money of
>millionaires lacks those who have too little of it.
Well, said. My father had to work for 60 years to contribute enough to the
starving people for him to get his $50 million in payment. Ask him if it
fell from the sky?
> > HARRY: Surely the money belonged to your father? Surely he had the
> right to give
> > it to you?
>
>Surely he doesn't need it anymore, nor do I. (see above)
So, you have made yourself the arbiter of need. Put on your jackboots!
> > HARRY: On the other hand, if your father made $50 million providing
> things for
> > people, and another man made $50 million by theft - how much should they be
> > taxed? I suggest that your father shouldn't be taxed at all for providing
> > things that people want - whereas the thief should lose the whole $50
> million.
> >
> > In other words the amount of money someone has doesn't matter - how it is
> > obtained does.
>
>$50 million can only be achieved by exploiting others.
Absolute poppycock! If you want to produce $50 million worth of goods and
services for others - for which they return you $50 million, what's the
problem? The situation is completely just.
Of course, not paying people for the job they do is a good way to for an
economy to fail - rather as did the soviet's. Although they had enough
sense to provide all kinds of special perks for their ballet dancers, and
musicians, and etc.
> > HARRY: Finally, I dislike the mixed economy called capitalism as much
> as you do. I
> > don't like the intrusiveness of government into the market place, and I
> > don't like its lack of intrusiveness into areas that aren't easily
> > controlled by the free market price mechanism.
>
>So you think it's okay that many people don't get a fair education due
>to lack of money ? In another post, you said you are *in favor* of
>equal opportunities !?
I thought that "education" wasn't a matter of choice, but that it was
compulsory. That's whether you had money or not.
I'm in favor of justice. With all respect, Chris, you seem to be in favor
of charity - for example, giving money to poor people.
Justice is greater than charity. In fact charity is the child of injustice.
The more time you spend on charity in all its forms, the less time you'll
be able to give to attaining justice.
"Taking from the rich and giving to the poor" is not an answer. I remember
Sir Stafford Cripps telling the socialists in the first postwar Labour
government who were demanding higher profits and income taxes: "If we took
every penny above 2,000 pounds of income, it wouldn't run Britain for one
day!"
> > But mostly I dislike examples of government mis-control being cited as
> > evidence of the failure of the free market.
>
>If you take gov't control away, the failure becomes even more abysmal.
>Btw, if you get mugged, I bet you'll be the first to cry out for the cops.
>Aren't cops a form of government control ?
How will the cops help me if I've been mugged? The statistics for catching
crooks are poor. The figures for getting convictions from those they do
catch are equally bad.The chances of reforming those convicted are abysmal.
But, policing, like fire-fighting, is a service. Do you think that these
services might be cheaper and more efficient if they were run by the market
and not bureaucrats?
Would you like the government to run your local supermarket?
The present California electricity problems is a beautiful example of
government not knowing what it's doing.
The idiots deregulated wholesale prices, while continuing to regulate
retail prices. So, the price of wholesale electricity went up, but the
companies couldn't get their money back by raising retail prices.
Yet, the problems were already there.
There had been no new electrical utilities built in California for more
than ten years - even though demand in the burgeoning Golden State had
increased by 20%. The Greens and their idiot allies had effectively fought
the sensible building of more plant.
Although some Greens have come to the conclusion that nuclear power is
better because nukes don't emit that terribly noxious gas, CO2 - the
California landscape that should have been dotted with nuclear plants, isn't.
Goverment generally doesn't do a terribly good job - even in the areas
which naturally are their responsibility (where the market doesn't work)..
The political system rests on a financial foundation of contributions from
the FatCats (those who get income from privileges given them by the
politicians).
So, stop trying to get a pittance back from the FatCats.
End the privileges.
Harry
***************************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
(818) 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242
***************************************
