Subject: Re: The Necessity of an Underclass (was: Re: Why are so many blacks either on we

From: [email-masked] (Richard Clark)
Date: 2 Jul 1995 09:50:22 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (David Oliver) says:

>>It should be recalled that before the Reagan give-away to the rich, 
>>American workers were the highest paid in the world. Now _Italian_ workers
>>make more than we do!  All so that stretch limos etc. could become more
>>commonplace in the good ol' US of A.
>
>You mean the 'give-away' where the rich got to keep more of the money
>they earned? How generous.
>
>-David Oliver
--------------------------------------------------------------------

David, if we all kept all that we "earned," there would, obviously, be 
no government to (a) help see to it that workers were properly educated 
for their optimal contribution to corporations, (b) help see to it that
there was proper infrastructure like rails, roads & bridges, which allow
rich people to prosper, etc.  Now we wouldn't want that, would we?  
Government is simply the means by which we collectively manage those 
elements of life that affect the whole of our country.  When the country 
is large and technologically complex, well then it naturally follows that 
government must be fairly sizable and sophisticated, too. And, you see,
this kind of government requires a great deal of money to operate.
So why not collect most of this money from those who derive the largest
benefit from what the government does, i.e. the rich?

Now, doesn't that make perfect sense, when you stop to think about it? 

Richard Clark

---

From: [email-masked] (Frank Ch. Eigler)
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 07:30:08 GMT

Richard Clark ([email-masked]) wrote:
: David, if we all kept all that we "earned," there would, obviously, be 
: no government

: to (a) help see to it that workers were properly educated 
: for their optimal contribution to corporations,

Let the corporations demand and sufficient education, and
future potential employees (only) compete and pay for it.

: (b) help see to it that
: there was proper infrastructure like rails, roads & bridges, which allow
: rich people to prosper, etc.

Simply let (only) the users pay for it.

: Now we wouldn't want that, would we?  
: Government is simply the means by which we collectively manage those 
: elements of life that affect the whole of our country.  

This is incorrect.  There are many elements (say, philosophy) that affect
the whole country but are not managed in this way.  There are also
many elements that are managed but do not affect the whole country
(a lemonade stand on a street in Little Town, Washington).  Therefore
your sentence is a equivocation (i.e., false).

: When the country 
: is large and technologically complex, well then it naturally follows that 
: government must be fairly sizable and sophisticated, too. And, you see,
: this kind of government requires a great deal of money to operate.

If the government provides a useful service, let (only) the service users
pay for them.

: So why not collect most of this money from those who derive the largest
: benefit from what the government does, i.e. the rich?

I think your `i.e.' deserves more justification.

: Now, doesn't that make perfect sense, when you stop to think about it? 

Indeed?

-- 
Frank Ch. Eigler // [email-masked]
                // [email-masked]
               // [email-masked]