From: Randall Parker 

In <38cd4d72{at}w3.nls.net>, the sagacious richhong{at}hawksci.com Richard
Hong perspicated:
>
> I think you're wrong.  First of all, the "moral hazard"
problem doesn't lie
> with the have-nots, it lies with the haves.

Hey, growing up rich does have its problems. "We're white punks on
dope." But the upper class isn't causing the lower class to be
dysfunctional.

>The lack of a desire to create
> a just society is the primary moral hazard from which the rest of the moral
> problems derive.

No it isn't. Laziness, impulsivenessm, and short-term thinking on the part
of the dummies is where the problem is coming from.

>
> Were we to create a morally just society - the power to do so, or at least
> the power to block it, rests with the haves - there wouldn't *be* any needy.

Only if the more affluent took every mistake and failure of the less
affluent as a moral obligation on the more affluent to fork over the dough
to fix it.

But since a system would not be sustainable. The dysfunctional would become
an ever increasingly larger fraction of the total population.

Rich, did you grow up with working class people who dropped out of high
school in large numbers? I did. It was very eye-opening.

> All would have food to eat and water to drink.

Hey, lets have communism!

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5