[BigV]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

um.

k.

I know I'm not a hypocrite, let me try to convince you of that (although in my current nicotine-deprived state, more effort is being spent backspacing over the dozen or so different variations of "cocksucker" that desperately want to occupy this space).

Thanks. I appreciate the effort and the (slightly) higher level discourse. I will do my part to repay the honor.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

First, let me make sure that I am hearing you correctly. You believe that as long as there are desperately poor people living in our country, there should be no exceedingly rich people.

Glad you asked. Let me be clear, I believe there will be poor, always. Sad, true, The Way Things Are. And a sincere "way to go" to the exceedingly rich. I know it's not all good, but there are worse problems to have.

The fact that there are people on both ends of the scale does NOT bother me. It is unavoidable, and therefore acceptable. We'll get to the "But..." in a minute.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The federal government should arbitrate who gets what;

No, again. YOU should arbitrate that, and I should arbitrate that and UT and all the rest of youse bums. We may choose to delegate the responsibility for the execution of our decisions to the "federal government", but I do not advocate abdication of my responsibility for my own actions, my own decisions.

We, as a people, a society, are obligated to arbitrate that. The mechanism for that distribution doesn't have to be just a single entity, like the feds. Indeed, it isn't today. Think of all the philanthropic organizations that "redistribute" the what to the who. And all the religious traditions I know anything about all exhort the believers to care for their brothers and sisters. Think about families that share. I know when I was out of work, the help we got was really appreciated, whether it came from family, church or the government (in my case, the state government)

And I want to make sure I mention individual giving. I know it sounds repetitious, but people give, give all the time. Out of their pocket and into the tin cup, dirty hand, volunteer roster, offering plate, charity drive, non-profit collections every day. All. The. Time.

Those decisions about who gets what come from individuals. People who think, and act.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

the more wealth you have accumulated, by whatever means, the greater percentage you must give to the government for redistribution, in whatever form. Right? Seems I've heard of that system before...

I'll take this fragment all together, jab and all. I DO believe in a progressive taxation system, and so do the great majority of Americans. It's the system we have, you know, tax "brackets", right? Nothing radical there. Chill out. I do believe

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Karl Marx

Now you think I'm a communist, right? How about this one then?

Of those to whom much is given, much is required. John F. Kennedy

Flaming liberal you shout, eh? Perhaps you've heard it this way.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Jesus, Luke 12:48 NIV

Now what am I?

If you have more, you should give more. Where are you coming from that makes that a bad thing?

As to the "any means" part...the means do matter. A lot.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The job of government is not to redistribute the private assets of its citizens until everyone feels like they're getting what they deserve. Furthermore, most of the poor people I know (and I know plenty -- my family's full of em, and I myself was unemployed for 2 years until this January) are insulted by the idea that liberals think we are so fucking inept that those who have succeeded should be forced by the government to give us the crumbs off their table.

*sigh*

What's happening is that the current system is not fair, not by a country mile (or a thousand country miles). The reason it's not fair is that money buys influence and influence craves money and on and on in one great big circle jerk. The poor have very little voice in the matter. They have little voice because they have little to offer those that are in a position to make the rules. Unlike the very wealthy that can literally buy the attention of those that govern. You claim to speak for the poor. Well, so do I. And I am talking about what's in their best interest.

And if the poor have little voice, then the future generations have even less. Who, I ask you, who will pay for the increase in the debt this administration has incurred? Your children and their children. Not you. Not me. F'sho not the trust fund babies and the corporations. And because they're unable to protest, the get the shaft. Have you ever seen that joke about the sergeant asking for a volunteer and the whole rank of soldiers except one takes a step back? That hapless "volunteer" was given the role through the complicity of everyone else.

Today that everyone else is you and me and those whose hands are on the levers of power. We're all speeding along the same track, and some are stoking the fire and some are stomping the brake. Would you join the side that is striving to increase the disparity in wealth?

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Maybe I would rather use my skills to better myself and my situation, and not suck off the teat of big government. Maybe I want to start my own business. Of course that likelihood recedes if I know that doing so successfully means that the fruits of my labor will be taken from me by force of law and given to those who didn't earn a damn penny of it.

Let's talk about what's in common here. Rich and poor alike have the same hours in a day. The vast majority are able bodied to some degree. That same majority has some visible means of support. Everyone has certain minimum consumptioni requirements, food, shelter. You agree with me so far, I'm sure. We may begin to diverge here.

As a society, we have affirmed other aspects of life as worthwhile, that every individual in our society can reasonably expect to enjoy. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Public education. Due process. Strong mutual national defense.

Do we still have some overlap? Left a lot out, I know. Here's another important section. Let me appeal to your self interest. So you want to be n entrepreneur? Great. What makes you willing to take the risk? Possible return? Low likelihood of having it fail, or stolen or federalized? What reduces that fear? A trust in the rule of law. You're willing to take personal and finacial risk BECAUSE of government, not in spite of it. *sheesh*

Now this government, with all these aspects, costs money. And ya don't have to be an economist to know you just can't "print more." Obviously, government provides these benefits, secures these liberties, protects it's citizens, educates it's people using tax dollars. Not that difficult. Oh, and by the way, you can't pick and choose which policies you'll support with each dollar. I don't write my check to the IRS and then cut of a big hunk of it with my scissors cause I think the war in Iraq was/is a mistake. It's a package deal.

I'll go you one further. It is in your best interest as a potentially wildly successful entrepreneur to overseed the ground you tread on. An educated workforce is the veritable font of innovation. The more skilled minds and gifted hands you have at work out there, the more likely, no, the more often you'll see innovation, that's spelled with a capital $, by the way.

You'll want judges and law enforcement to protect your assets. You want people to be able to get to your store, on public roads and to have enough money to buy your whiz-bang-o-matic, right?

Ok, that last one is really about wages and not tax policy, but the point is that it takes money to make it all go around.

--continued--