In Defense of the Rich

Arts & Sciences Culture & History
1

On may occasions I will see a poster calling the police “pigs” or making dericive comments about “big bad corporations” or “greedy rich people” and usually I let out a little chickle. Sort of a flashback to the 60 - 70’s. Just imagining the head-bands and tinted wire rims with the tie-dye (sorry TM) shirts and Jefferson Airplane (Up Against the Wall Mo-Fo) playing…ahh such memories. And then I realize that its 2006 and this sophmoric rhetoric is just silly now.
Here’s a related article about “rich people.” And why its good to have them around!

[quote]In Defense of the Rich
by John Hawkins, Posted May 31, 2006

“We’re the party that wants to see an America in which people can still get rich.” —Ronald Reagan

“Behind every great fortune there is a crime.” —Honore de Balzac

The two quotes you’ve just read do a great job of representing how most liberals and conservatives view the rich. Conservatives believe that America is a land of opportunity, a place where a person can go from rags to riches if he’s clever and willing to work hard.

On the other hand, liberals believe that in and of itself, wealth is evidence of wrongdoing. Either the rich are, “winners of life’s lottery,” who didn’t earn the money they have or it was somehow swindled from the poor. Even if somehow, some way, neither of those conditions are present, then how can any decent person stand to be so rich when so many other people are so poor—well, unless you’re a trial lawyer, celebrity, or someone who contributes vast sums to the Democratic Party as penance, in which case all is forgiven.

These two attitudes explain why liberals often engage in class warfare and accuse conservatives of being, “in the pocket of the rich.” When your starting point is that, “rich people are bad people because they’re rich,” then simply refusing to display knee-jerk hostility towards the wealthy is taken as a sign of unscrupulousness.

But, what so many liberals fail to see is how much the rich contribute to our society. Just to name one example, let’s take a look at a man whose name is practically synonymous with limitless wealth: Bill Gates.

Would this country be better off if Bill Gates had never been born? My guess is that Microsoft’s 61,000 plus employees wouldn’t think so. What about the recipients of the $28.8 billion that Bill Gates has given away to charities and causes? What about the people who built his mansions and his cars? Heck, what about you? Do you have any Microsoft products on your computer?

The reality is that when you take down a rich man, legions of poorer men suffer as a result of his misfortune. Of course, there are some people who did inherit their money or become rich by leeching off society (like John Edwards), but most Americans who have become wealthy made their fortunes by doing an exceptional job of serving their fellow man in some capacity.(more at link)
humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15279[/quote]

2

Sometimes TC you have trouble seeing the elephant in the room of your own arguments.

Bill Gates is pro taxes, pro birth control, against guns. He is your bleeding heart liberal.

3

He is??? Small ‘c’, conservative with a social conscience, I thought. :idunno:

I applaud his decision to give away virtually all of his wealth, and leave his kids $10 million each. More than enough for most anything they’d like to do–from nothing, to take a run at making their own fortunes. It’s too bad he’s made that money peddling such a poor product, but he made it, and has kept it, and is doing good with it, reasonably honestly. (Yeah, yeah, MS tried to swing it’s near monopoly power around too much, stole a few programs, and has been smacked around a bit over it, but there’s no blood on their hands… such high standards these days. :laughing:)

Whatever. Good for him. Given all of the above, I couldn’t care less what his political stripes are.

4

I’m liberal and I like money. I rike it a rot.

5

I’m an anarchist and I like money. I rike it a rot…I want to rub myself down in 1NT coins.

6

I’m a liberal, and I believe there’s nothing wrong with becoming rich as long as it’s done so honestly. There’s no hypocrisy in being a rich liberal.

7

Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor goes way back farther than the 1960s. Robin Hood and his merry men were (gay?) hippies. Jesus was a communist, attacking moneylenders and ranting about camels passing through eyes of needles. Buddha was a rich man but he gave up all the money and women to live in a shack in the woods contemplating.

Personally, I am not religious, so I have nothing against making money. Money is the engine that drives modern society. Without it we’d all be living in a mud hut in the jungle contemplating our navels.

8

I wonder if there are any stats on how many (proportionately) of the rich give their money to good causes, and how much of it (proportionately) they give compared to the less-well-off. I’d bet the figures might surprise you.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with being rich, necessarily, but there IS something wrong with tax policy when the rich get off paying less in taxes than the working poor or even the middle class, proportionately.

9

I think he has a philosophy all his own or shared with a few like souls such as Soros, and and to some extent Buffett. It’s been coined liberal communism.

10

[quote=“TainanCowboy”] And then I realize that its 2006 and this sophmoric rhetoric is just silly now.
[/quote]

What, are there no sophmores left in the world? You grow up and the world is supposed to grow with you?

Anyway, like most others I have no problem with money gotten legally. I do however dislike conservatives who are sharp as knives in business and yet claim to be devout Christains. Sorry, I was raised around devout Christains, and they lead a life of self-sacrifice, not personal enrichment.

[quote]
but most Americans who have become wealthy made their fortunes by doing an exceptional job of serving their fellow man in some capacity.[/quote]

Got a source for this buddy? Didn’t think so.

What’s with the candy-coated version of capatilism? Business is in the business of making money, not serving mankind. Many top business leaders and thinkers argue that business has no social obligations at all. Where it would naturally step on the weak or cause harm to society it is up to the government to create laws to prevent this. Business has no responsibility to curb its own rapacious nature.

And what’s with holding up John Edwards as a paragon of leech-hood? Did the writer think Ken Lay has been referenced too many times in the last week? :unamused:

11

shameless capitalist bump

12

I wouldn’t mind rich people so much if they didn’t seem so goddamned dumb half the time.

13

Go back and read your bible before you start making false statements about Jesus.

Anyway, I like money. But way too many people are controlled by it and not controlling it. Money for me would just be a way for me to enjoy my life as I see fit. I have no desire to be the richest dead person in the graveyard, since all that I could buy I can’t take it with me. Hell, money should be fun to have, fun to share, fun to bless people with. Not some evil device you have to suppress yourself for. It’s not worth it.