ù Quoting Bob Rudolph from a message to Ryan Bagueros  ù 
BR> Sure there's a difference - but so what?  Would you take what the guy 
BR> inherits  and distribute it evenly among who?  The minimum wage 
BR> folks?  The folks below  average?  Or would you simply take it and 
BR> give $1.98 to everyone in the  universe? No matter what you do, the 
Your argument always falls back to, "Well, you're right, Ryan, but what are 
you
going to do - redistribute the wealth?!?", as you froth at the mouth at the 
thought that I'm proposing more taxes for the rich, or some communist 
apparatus. Of course, all along I've been suggesting the eradication of money 
itself, and so your argument falls flat on its face.
BR> The rich are not in complete control - even they answer to someone if 
BR> only to  themselves.  What is your alternative, and where has it ever 
BR> worked?
Perhaps not *complete* control. But they certainly have way more power than 
you
do, or your constituency does, and your state representative, and probably 
your
state senator, and maybe even your federal representative.. 
What is my alternative? As I've said, a social system that does not have 
money.
Where has it worked? Spontaneously, there are a million examples of people 
functioning as a civil society without money. Historically, I can refer you 
to 
the decentralized sandinistas, or israeli communes, or chiapas in mexico, or 
spain in the 30's, etc etc. 
BR> "the people" can NEVER control production of anything without the 
BR> force of a  market, and the return on investment as incentive.  Greed 
BR> is one of the best  motivators there is - and you know it as well as 
BR> I know it.
Greed motivates for profit, and profit exists so some people can get rich off 
many more people's labor. NEED will always be a far better motivator than 
greed
anyday - and far more equitable.
--- FMail 1.22
---------------