At 08:19 AM 16/06/00 -0400, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>As it is, only about a third of the population or so actually
How do these figures cash out, Mike? I can only assume you're including
children (do you really expect them to earn a crust?) and women looking
after children (unpaid, by and large--a scandal, in my view).
>Demanding that a small minority do all the productive work, confiscating
>half their production as 'taxes', so a majority can live in sloth is
>what is really greedy and inconsiderate. Its modern slavery.
If half the earnings of a small minority is redistributed to a slothful
majority, the slothful can't be doing too well. Is it possible that there
aren't as many satisfying jobs around for at least some of them as there
used to be, when technology was less pervasive and powerful?
More to the point, we need to confront the reality--or so I assume--that in
the near future there'll be fewer and fewer jobs available for those not
near the top end of the scale. With any luck, there won't be any
toil-demanding jobs at all. What you dub `slavery' sounds to me like
lucking in to a winning ticket in the genomic/cultural capital sweepstakes.
If we can't manage a bit of humanitarianism, let's see some noblesse oblige.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:24 MDT