True. I feel privileged to live in North America and to be protected by the whole range of laws, regulations, etc. which allow me to survive and thrive.
arthur -----Original Message----- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 9:23 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet Arthur, I would say that behind every great fortune is a lucrative privilege. However, there are many people who make plenty of money by working for it. However, all of us work within a milieu of privilege. Without even trying, everyone is both harmed and helped by privilege. It's invasive. Harry ------------------------------------------ Arthur wrote: >So you don't go along with the saying "behind every great fortune is a great >crime..." > >-----Original Message----- >From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:22 PM >To: Ed Weick; Ray Evans Harrell; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet > > >Ed, > >The problem is that most Basic Income ideas want to take from the rich and >give to the poor. As I said, if the rich earned it, we have no right to >their earnings. If they are rich because the government gave them a >lucrative privilege, the privilege should be removed. > >It shouldn't be supported and then taxed. That's ridiculous. > >As you know, Rent (in the Classical sense) is a creation of the community >that finds its way into private hands. If it were to be collected and given >back to the community that created it, not only would it make sense, it >would be the moral thing to do. > >Some Georgists place this "Citizen's Dividend" high on their agenda. > >All figures are highly suspect and my arithmetic is more so. There is a >total land value in the US of about $30 trillion. At 5% we can capitalize >down to an annual income of $1.5 trillion - to be divided among (say) 300 >million Americans. > >That would seem to work out at about $5,000 for every man, woman, and >child. Let's halve it for much of it is land speculation. So, a nuclear >family of four would get $10,000 Citizen's Dividend - without taking a >penny from the people who earned their wealth. > >Yet, this isn't so important. What is important is to stop the hemorrhaging >from the economy caused by heavy speculation in the basic source of all our >production. > >Harry > >---------------------------------------------- > >Ed wrote: > > >Ray, surely the idea is not to redistribute everything. Surely all that is > >needed is some form of redistribution that ensures that everyone in a > >society has enough to live on if they happen to lose their jobs or are > >unable to work for some other reason. Unlike welfare, it should be > >something that is so integral to society that no one could be labeled or > >stigmatized because they make use of it. If it existed, we wouldn't need > >things like welfare, disability payments, or employment insurance. On the > >part of society, the operating moral principle would be that every citizen > >is entitled to it. On the part of the citizen, the operating moral > >principle would be to use it only when one had to. Some people would have > >to use it permanently, but hopefully most only temporarily. It's like the > >basic income proposals Sally Lerner used to promote on this list. > > > >Ed Weick **************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.attbi.com/~haledward **************************************************** _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
