| |
Richard Franks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.loc.uk, Richard Franks writes:
>
> > I don't think that is "wrong" for some people have more than others, but that
> > it would be "good" if things were more equal; it's an important distinction.
>
> Before I'm pounced upon, that statement isn't meant to be an all-encompassing
> answer for the worlds ails - I'm not quite glib enough to say that, but rather
> that it's a general rule that can apply to somethings and not others. I don't
> have a clue how to make the world an 'equal' place(1), but I'm working on it :)
>
> Richard
>
> (1) Except that I'm pretty sure that capitalism as we know it doesn't play a
> part.
This NEEDS to go to off-topic.debate, followups set there.
Suffice it to say that I'd not care to live in a world where everything
was "equal". To me, "equal" means taking away from those of ability and
giving to the undeserving.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
| (...) Ooops - yep, thanks! (...) Agreed - equality doesn't have to be applied universally to make some things more "equal". I don't think that I implied that everything in the world should be "equal". (...) "Undeserving" is a very ambiguous term, do (...) (25 years ago, 1-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
163 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
