uncle@ucsbcsl.UUCP (08/06/86)
RE: Keith Lynch's reply re: is money power? etc:
Our most fundamental disagreement appears to be his
rejection of the assertion that excessive wealth IS excessive
power just as excessive administrative power of government
officials. To suggest that money is nothing more than
the power to freely trade with others is, i believe, factually
wrong; money is simply indirect-addressing of power,
money stands for a power over objects and services.
Furthermore, money is not identical with freedom; there is
money in the soviet union AND in south africa!
I continue to maintain what, i believe, is a consistent
position in opposition to ALL abuses of power; abuses of
power invaribaly arise out of excessive concentrations of
power; money IS power; A policeman's truncheon is power.
In attempting to deal with the full spectrum of abuse of
power across all social and political barriers, one
sometimes falls prey to an analytical double standard
because one feels that if one agrees to a well reasoned
position (not necessarily the position i have advanced),
one fears that its implications may be in some way
unacceptable. What i am trying to say is that IF
what i have said is so, then the implications are not
that our system or their system or both systems must
be abolished, but rather that excessive power should
be circumscribed here, there, and everywhere. 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 also do not consider the
twenty-second ammendment to be a damper upon political
initiative in this country; 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.
-------