RE: too rich?
January 26, 2013 at 1:55 pm
(This post was last modified: January 26, 2013 at 2:01 pm by Whateverist.)
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=5...=1&theater
Seen on facebook but I don't know how to make the cartoon appear here. It isn't a dead fit for the topic here. Unlike 'god', the mega rich don't have any reputation to uphold. So their lack of charity doesn't result in an absurd contradiction the way it does for character of the bible's god. But you have to wonder why the 100 richest don't just give the poor bastards some food when they would have to give up absolutely nothing of their own consumption. All it would cost them is the potential to consume even more than they actually can or care to.
As a flaming liberal, I believe there is always an implicit social contract at work. When the game starts to play out in an unacceptable way, the masses have two choices. Starve out of a sense of fair play given the explicit rules of the game, or, hit the reset button and change the game.
Libertarians and conservatives have a strong regard for the existing, explicit rules of the game. They naturally are invested in preserving those rules and their consequences no matter the result. "It isn't fair to whine and impose on the winners just because you aren't keeping up", they will say. And of course they are correct, given the explicit rules. But when the results become unbearable, it is time for the masses to remind the effete that there is a reset button.
![[Image: anihead.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.gifmania.co.uk%2Fweapons%2Fguillotine%2Fanihead.gif)
Seen on facebook but I don't know how to make the cartoon appear here. It isn't a dead fit for the topic here. Unlike 'god', the mega rich don't have any reputation to uphold. So their lack of charity doesn't result in an absurd contradiction the way it does for character of the bible's god. But you have to wonder why the 100 richest don't just give the poor bastards some food when they would have to give up absolutely nothing of their own consumption. All it would cost them is the potential to consume even more than they actually can or care to.
As a flaming liberal, I believe there is always an implicit social contract at work. When the game starts to play out in an unacceptable way, the masses have two choices. Starve out of a sense of fair play given the explicit rules of the game, or, hit the reset button and change the game.
Libertarians and conservatives have a strong regard for the existing, explicit rules of the game. They naturally are invested in preserving those rules and their consequences no matter the result. "It isn't fair to whine and impose on the winners just because you aren't keeping up", they will say. And of course they are correct, given the explicit rules. But when the results become unbearable, it is time for the masses to remind the effete that there is a reset button.
