"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Should the Rich "Give Back" to Society?
Submitted by Anthony Gregory on Wed, 2010-06-09 03:00
in
Sandy Ikeda on commie rubbish.
5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
-
1 week 3 days ago
-
2 weeks 4 days ago
-
6 weeks 2 days ago
-
6 weeks 4 days ago
-
8 weeks 23 hours ago
-
12 weeks 4 days ago
-
16 weeks 5 days ago
-
31 weeks 3 days ago
-
50 weeks 2 days ago
-
1 year 6 weeks ago
Comments
The Gates example is flawed (he wouldn't have gotten rich without the existence of intellectual property), but the point is still well taken. Gates "gives back" so as not to get pies in his face. As soon as he started his charitable giving all the anti-Gates rhetoric disappeared. Why is that? The "counter-dominance instinct":
http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/evolpsych.html
Why do we have an instinct for exploiting the rich, especially those without power? "Because that's where the money is." We have lots of instincts for using violence when it suits us. Sometimes they often come with justifications, like "He didn't really deserve that money. He got lucky. He took it from us. We need it more than him. He's greedy. He committed a crime." Thus the seeming compassion of the redistributionists is no different from the rationalization that goes on in the head of a simple thug. Gates is simply paying protection money.
I give this article only a 5 because it points out the obvious (to libertarians), without identifying root causes or offering solutions.