Sunday, February 15, 2009
An era when greed prevailed.
I'm not sure that I want people to have the right to an unlimited amount of wealth. Maybe there should be a limit. At some level. Yes, I'm thinking that society should have the right to impose some sort of limit. Maybe by confiscating rather significant sums from huge sums of wealth. To be dedicated, instead, to so-called common good. Spread around. Shared. We do that now, I suppose, to some degree through our taxing structures. Maybe that's all I'm calling for. Rearrangement of the taxing system. So that the rich pay more. And the poor and middle classes pay less, or nothing at all. I want a utopian society, I guess, where everyone's basic needs are met. Maybe that's unachievable. But it's a worthy goal. It would require some redistribution of wealth. The 'haves,' of course, will most likely resist such proposals. Arguing that there's an inalienable right to limitless amounts of wealth. I'd dispute that. As would many socialists and communists. But they shouldn't be condemned for that. Anymore than I should castigate the very wealthy from wanting to keep every penny -- if that's their desire. I suspect we'll see a gradual shifting of attitudes. In 1,000 years, we'll be putting much more emphasis on the common good. People then will look back on the 21st century as sort of medieval and unenlightened times. An era when greed prevailed. When there was a wide gap between the rich and poor. --Jim Broede
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Salary/wage caps are one thing. Now, if that person took their "allowable" wage, and turned it into a mountain of cash, whether by investments, inheritance, whatever-so long as it is not at the expense of others, God bless them. AND tax it all.
As I wrote in a previous response:
"Once the (German)Government THOUGHT the people were going to 'take to the streets', one of the first freedoms taken away, was '... restrictions on property...'. This was under the advisement of Hitler."
Speaking of Socialism, one should be clear, which term is being referred to. Socialism can be anything from Social Democracy to Communism-which is what you many times seem to describe and favor.
Way too much dependency on Government makes for lazy, dependent people. Personal responsibility leads to personal growth. This is sadly lacking in our country, and becoming more so, each day.
BTW, WHO determines what the "common good" is????
My common good may not be the same as yours. What then?? Democracy??
Maebee---'Government Encouraged Enlightened Capitalism' is a phrase that I believe would best apply to the thoughts of Jim. His ideas don't seem to fit any of the current definitions for Socialism or Communism and the changes he proposes could be embraced by a democracy.
I question the chronology of your statement: "Once the (German)Government THOUGHT the people were going to 'take to the streets', one of the first freedoms taken away, was '... restrictions on property...'. This was under the advisement of Hitler."
From my reading the political powers in Germany decided to hold 2 elections hoping that Hitler would win a majority of the vote because people 'took to the street'. When the elections were not successful officials prevailed upon Schleicher to tender his resignation. Once it was received Hitler, who had been runner up in the elections, was appointed.
People may have been ‘running in the street’ excited over the news of the Reichstag fire (which incidentally may have been instigated by Hitler supporters in positions of power) ...but...I believe the powers given Hitler after the fire were not given as a reaction to stop looting or riots.
Excuse me, skerichers,
I was referring to the circumstances after the Reichstag fire, and the perceived threat of Communist Revolution. My chronology stands as is. I do understand that Hitler and cohorts instigated chaos AFTER the 2 Presidential elections, not between.
The election for Congressional Seats, which followed 3 months later, making the Nazi Party the largest, but not the majority, was a victory only because of Hitler's promises to restore law and order. Ironic.
Schleicher's resignation was also a result of the congressional elections.
I did not claim power was given to Hitler after the fire(Reichstag terrorist crisis). I said that the decree to restrict the civil liberties was issued "..under the advisement of Hitler(to Hindenburg)." Hindenburg was actually suffering senility at the time.
It should be stipulated that, once Kurt von Schleicher's resignation was forced, Hitler was appointed Chancellor, under President Hindenburg.
He became Fuehrer after Hindenburg's death in Aug., 1934.
Jim---Much as I enjoyed researching Hitler’s rise to power...I do wish that the 3 of us had not gone off on a Hitler tangent. The references that I came across mentioning President Hindenburg’s senility made me shake my head in amazement. The fact that I would learn that Hindenburg might have had Alzheimer’s or vascular dementia gave me the impression that there is absolutely no where that I can escape to without constant reminders.
I'm probably going to sit out this discussion on greed...and ...hope that Hitler is not mentioned the next time that greed is discussed.
Post a Comment