KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/15/86)
From: <ucsbcsl!uncle@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
... money is simply indirect-addressing of power,
money stands for a power over objects and services.
You are confusing power over PEOPLE with power over objects and
services. Certainly money is power over objects and services, but not
over people. No amount of money can buy the power to make a person do
something he doesn't want to do, give up something he doesn't want to
give up, accept something he doesn't want to accept, etc.
Furthermore, money is not identical with freedom; there is
money in the soviet union AND in south africa!
I never said that it was. I did say that where money is taken away
one is not free. How can I be free to freely trade with others when
much of what I give and take is stolen from me? I am free to grow
potatoes, and I am free to trade potatoes for my neighbor's carrots if
he agrees to the trade. But I am not free if a bully extorts some of
the potatoes and some of the carrots.
Neither am I free if I cannot spend my money to have my views
published. Neither am I free if there are special laws that apply
to me because of my race.
I continue to maintain what, i believe, is a consistent
position in opposition to ALL abuses of power; ...
It is easy to see how a government can abuse its power. I cannot
see how a wealthy person can abuse the power of his wealth, except by
using it to hire criminals (which is already illegal, of course).
I would not consider it a damper on my pecuniary initiative if
there should be a maximum-assests law limiting the
amount of wealth i could accumulate to, say
(100 * US-per-capita-GNP); ...
I would.
Note that the average per-capita-GNP is partly due to people with
more than 100 times that average. Such a law would REDUCE the
average, and thus bring even more people under its influence.
Once you allow such a law, with the excess wealth presumably going
to fund various government programs, how soon before that magic number
100 gets reduced? If it is moral for government to take all wealth in
excess of 100 times the average GNP, surely it isn't immoral to change
it to 90. And if 90 is ok, why not 80, if it's for a good cause? Or
10, or 2? Or 1? Each of these decreases would decrease the average
itself, and thus bring more and more people into the 'evil rich'
category.
If inflation is ten percent and after-tax return on investment is
five percent, a twenty year retirement at GNP levels would require
considerably more than 100 times GNP as a starting point.
Britain tried a wealth tax like this. The effects were predictable.
The most wealthy and most creative people left the country. Many went
to considerable effort to hide their wealth. And of course there was
much less motivation to create new wealth. The most creative and
productive people are precisely those who it's best for everyone if
they continue to produce. But why should they if they will get
nothing for it? Punishing productivity and rewarding sloth is not the
way to make the world a better place. It would make more sense to
provide matching funds for anyone sufficiently wealthy. Not that I am
advocating that, but it would make more sense than your proposal.
... i also do not consider the twenty-second ammendment to be a
damper upon political initiative in this country; ...
It is true that Reagan is only the second person to be affected by
it. But it is a poor sort of law for which the only defense is that
it hasn't done much harm. The people should have the right to elect
whoever they please. Even if the candidate is under 35, has lived
overseas, has been convicted of crimes, or even (horrors!) has been
president for eight years.
Justice in society is the ultimate issue, not political rhetoric
of any variety masquerading as a spokesman for Justice when it is
really serving as a mercenary of excessive, abusive privilege.
Who decides how much wealth is excessive and abusive? The
government? And is their far greater power not more to be feared? I
sympathize with even the wealthiest person against the immense might
of the intractible State.
What right does anyone have to say how wealthy someone can become?
If I have more than 1000 potatoes (exact number to be decided by the
government's whim) does the government have the right to raid my
pantry and steal the excess? Because they fear excess power from me?
...Keith
-------campbell@maynard.UUCP (08/23/86)
KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU writes: > > From: <ucsbcsl!uncle@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> > > ... money is simply indirect-addressing of power, > money stands for a power over objects and services. > > You are confusing power over PEOPLE with power over objects and >services. Certainly money is power over objects and services, but >not over people. No amount of money can buy the power to make a >person do something he doesn't want to do, give up something he >doesn't want to give up, accept something he doesn't want to accept, > etc. What?!? Gimme a break... Can you get a rock to crumble by paying it? Can you get a tree to fall by bribing it? Money is power over people, and people only. Money and power are two sides of the same coin, and they are convertible to each other the way matter and energy are equivalent and convertible. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846 -------