From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Wed Feb  9 23:13:22 1994

Greetings all:
    I've been out of the loop for a while, this time reading Jacques 
Derrida, and once again I've missed a fantastic discussion.
Maedhros, I'd like to take issue with a general premise that you seem to 
advocate in your post #390.  While I sympathize with your feeling that 
some people enjoy "undeserved" wealth and privelege in our society, I must 
disagree with what seems to be your critreia for who deserves those perks 
and priveleges.  You assert that people should basically get what they 
earn with their own labor, a seemingly reasonable assertion.  However, 
it's based on a faulty assumption.  You assume that people who work hard 
actually EARN or CREATE the wealth that they receive.  This is patently 
untrue.
    From my experience, the fruits of society do not go to those who work 
hard.  You'll have a hard time convincing me that George Bush EARNS or 
CREATES the $22 million dollars/year that he receives in salary (in other 
words his net worth is more than 10 times higher, this is just net income 
per year).  Did he EARN this?  Does he DESERVE it in any way?  What about 
the person who works two jobs, has no insurance, is trying to put himself 
through school, and earns only $16,000 dollars per year?  Presuming that 
this person works twice as hard as the retired president, shouldn't he 
earn twice as much?  Is hard work really the system by which wealth is 
distributed?  No, of course not.  Nevertheless, George Bush (and a lot of 
other wealthy people) justify their greed by arguing that they EARNED 
their position in society.  They justify the fact that they are screwing 
the rest of us, by arguing that they worked for what they got.  
Conversely, they argue, that the poor people are to blame for their 
situation because they refuse to work hard (a very popular, and very wrong 
over-generalization).  George Bush proves that hard work is NOT the way to 
become wealthy, but rather a combination of luck and priveledge 
(primarily) and, no doubt, hard work helps.  However, there are a lot of 
people who work very hard and will never be near as wealthy as Mr. Bush.
    So what am I saying?  I'm saying that the Puritan Work Ethic (work 
hard, and the money will come), (God helps those who help themselves), 
etc., is a philosophy that allows the rich justify their greed.  That 
philosophy keeps the rich rich and the poor poor.  It is a long-held
vehicle of oppression.  The puritan work ethic is a lie that the rich 
people feed to the poor people to keep the poor working hard.  In turn, 
the hard work of the poor keeps the rich rolling in dough.
    But if I read you correctly, you recognize that the rich people gare 
getting more than they deserve.  You're arguing that this is unfair, and 
of course it is.  No doubt you'd also argue that the poor  people should 
not receive any assistance from the government that they don't earn 
through their own labor.  In a utopia (dangerous place) perhaps hard work 
would be the criterion that society would use for the distribution
of wealth.  However, I prefer to discuss the real world.  And in this real 
world, where most wealthy people got there not from hard work but from 
being born to it, or lucky enough to get it, or vile enough to rob others 
of it, etc. ... in this world I refuse to criticize poor people for taking 
assistance from the government that they didn't earn when the rich didn't 
earn what they got either.  I refuse to engage in that type of 
hypocrisy.  I think that the puritan work ethic invites us to this 
hypocrisy in some very dangerous ways.

-laelth