From: Miriam English
> Hopefully, one day people will see that having an underclass is dangerous
> for the upper classes.
>
> As I see it, this is one of the best arguments for welfare and other
> mechanisms for redistribution of wealth. If the rich are supremely wealthy
> and the poor are without hope then what have the poor to lose by attacking
> the rich? I am not saying it is right or proper, just that it must be seen
> to be a real danger.
>
> Helping the poverty-stricken to have a chance at a good and comfortable
> future is not just good for the poor, but good insurance for the rich.
> Arming yourself is not the solution -- you just live in a well decorated
cage.
>
> Cheers,
> - Miriam
And cheers TO Miriam! What a humane perspective.
I personally don't understand the trust libertarians in general seem to put
on "the individual." I don't recall reading of any time in our history
(U.S. history) when libertarianism was supposedly in bloom, and when peace,
prosperity and goodwill reigned. If there was such a time (a better time
for citizens in the U.S., compared to recent years), I'd like to know when
that time was.
My dear husband and I were recently talking, and something he said really
caught my attention. He speculated that if past failures of statist
economies can often be attributed to mismanagement of faulty data, then with
the advent of advances such as artificial intelligence, comprehensive
economic data on both macro- and micro- levels, as well as more refined
modeling and forecasting techniques, there is no reason why centrally
controlled economies may not turn out to be the more effective system, after
all, in the future.
Olga
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:11 MDT