Subject:
|
Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:47:30 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm.#stopspam#org
|
Viewed:
|
2473 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospam__yahoo.com> wrote:
> > (or more) money will be spent. The difference will be that instead of
> > politicians spending the money to win popularity contests, the charities
> > will be vyeing for your hard earned dollars, which you are going to spend on
> > the charity which accomplishes the most bang for its buck.
>
> Ah, so the charities are like a mini dollar-electable government?
Sounds that way to me. It's Better than a one-vote-per-person system,
because this way those who are wealthy (and therefore more qualified to
decide what is good for society) get more say. Bill Gates [1] obviously
shoud have 25 million times more say than I do. As Orwell might say, he's 25
million times more equal than I am. And that's not even considering the fact
that we're still repaying school debt. When you figure that in, he's
infinitely more qualified.
[1] Comparing things to Bill Gates' wealth is probably as bad as bringing in
the Nazis, isn't it?
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
473 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
|
|
|
|
