[rollei_list] Re: Copyright Law
- From: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:14:09 +0000
Hi Austin,
On 3 Dec, 2009, at 15:13, Austin Franklin wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
>> I have been infuriated by an individual I know
>> (very well) who inherited a fortune, does no work, and complains
>> mightily about the high income of others.
>
> I don't see the problem here. It's his/her money to do with as they wish,
> not yours. You are supporting social engineering. If someone is a rich
> idiot, that's their business. If you don't like them, then don't deal with
> them. I don't think the money makes this particular person a dolt, even
> without it they probably would be a dolt. It perhaps exacerbates it though.
I have no problem with them being rich, just their ranting over high salaries
for people who -do- work for a living whilst not having to do so themselves and
living very comfortably due to no merit of their own. This individual is
actually a charming intelligent person, normally. OTOH they would not be rich
if they had to rely on their own efforts.
>
> If someone wants to set their family up in perpetuity, how ever they want to
> do it, that's their business IMO. Perhaps being European, and coming from a
> feudal system, that may weigh on some of your opinions? What makes royalty
> royal?
It is indeed human nature to want to conserve your own genes. The naked ape is
a ruthless greedy selfish animal and before there was a reasonably strong rule
of law the most ruthless, selfish and greedy ended up with everything enslaving
everybody else and leaving them grovelling in the mud and starving. These rich
people intermarried and gave themselves titles. That is what I thin of royalty.
Now we have a stronger rule of law this happens less, though in most countries
it still exists to a greater or lesser extent.
If you accept that tax is a necessary thing, in as much as it is a communal
charge for all the things we collectively think we want, such as police,
defence, roads and so forth, my point is that it is fairer to -not- tax
somebody for work in their lifetime, but take what they did not need after they
have gone. Also taxing other non-earned income such as gambling gains, I
include the stock market in the gambling gains.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
> ---
I realise this is a somewhat impractical suggestion, but fairer than what we
have now.
All the best,
Frank---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
