RE: A Fundamental Question

["Michael L. Coburn" <michael.l.coburn@gte.net>]

    In observance and response to others:

    It seems that all of the discussion centers on what I call religious
beliefs.  These are the opinions that we hold to without any objective
evidence of their efficacy.  When phrased by the left the "Fundamental
Question" is about compassion for the "less fortunate".  When phrased by
the right the question is about compassion for the "successful".

   In keeping with the above observation I would classify the following
as "left".

     From: Dana Briggs <fambriggs@earthlink.net>
     Subject: A Fundamental Question

One of the fundamental questions at the base of this topic/program, is:

"Does a societal contract exist to assist those 'less fortunate'?"

    The enter the right handers who rephrase the question as one of
punishing successful people by making them support a bunch of raggnots:


        Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 21:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
     From: Serenety Hanley <sdhanle@ibm.net>
     Subject: RE: A Fundamental Question


You have presented "fundamental question", but what is your answer? You
ask if we should support those less fortunate, but should we? I ask you,
if we support all those who cannot support themselves, what about those
who are successful? One who should desire to succeed should not be
punished to support those who decide to do otherwise. I do believe that
social security should continue, but we should not suffer the burden of
higher SS taxes to support those who choose not to succeed.


It is my opinion that we must take the middle road.  We cannot actually
know why people are in need.  We cannot know that they are in need
because they are "unfortunate" or because then "choose not to succeed".
All we cam know is that they are infirm due to age or some other
affliction.  If someone is to be "punished" in order to provide for
those in need then we need to be a little more realistic about who gets
"punished".  You can't "punish" people for contributing to the well
being of their fellow men to the extent that their fellow men shower
them with money.  That is just as wrong as punishing those who are in
need on the mistaken premise that they were a bunch of wastrels who
should have saved and invested for their later years.  Look at it the
way it is instead of the way your religious convictions and societal
attitudes command you to:  If anything is to be "punished" it should be
the *actual* waste as opposed to the waste that some would imply from
impoverishment of the elderly or the infirm.  There is simply NOT a
direct correlation between elderly wealth and the piety of savings.  Nor
is there a direct correlation between those who are poor and those who
spent all their money and danced the summer away.  In order to establish
such a correlation it is necessary to tax consumption.  Those who really
are wastrels (as opposed to those who just don't have anything to save)
will pay the taxes to support those in need. Those who invest will not
be "punished" in order to support those in need.  And when we are old
and impoverished we will have already "paid our dues" because we were
the wastrels that paid for the previous generation and the new wastrels
will pay for us.  Or, more likely, we will need an income supplement
because we were not fortunate have enough to invest or because we made
some less than utopian decisions in our investments.  If there is to be
"punishment" then it should be assigned  to those who would waste the
resources of the planet by buying gas guzzling sports cars, and fancy
clothes, and huge houses, and yachts.  It should also be visited upon
those who would overpopulate the planet in their lust to insure they
will be cared for by their many children.