On 2/18/2012 7:12 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 2:59 PM, wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, wrote:
It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it
fair
that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no.
The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal.
It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of
"fairness" is worthless bull****.
Only to you. How I define it is how normal people do it. You can try to
justify having crazy views any way you want but they're still crazy. You
can say smoking tobacco is good for you all you want, but it's not. Your
idea of fair is equally nutty.
Hawke
I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of
fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair
for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the
people have an equal opportunity to be rich.
See, Dan, you qualified your statement by saying if everyone had an
equal opportunity to be rich.
Everyone *does* have an equal opportunity to be rich.
In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.
That would be a much better argument, yes.
That *is* the argument.
But again, we know that it's
not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't.
That's almost entirely the argument.
In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people
are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some
inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their
own efforts and are fairly rich.
So what does that mean?
It means that you need to keep your grubby totalitarian mitts off
people's money.