People of the world worship many different Gods. The one God they worship in common is money

The Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, which among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness., the phrase “…that all men are created equal…” it really meant then that “all free, property-owning white males are created equal”.

George Orwell puts forward the ideas of all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. Society has had always consisted of a few people born on third base and others born on first and second base. This has been an entrenched phenomenon through history. The only changes have been the varying distance between each group.

Children have no choice of their parents or which group they will be born in. They must accept the affluence, culture, genetics, race, birth order, etc of the parents they are assigned to.

Many small business owners are fearful of paying taxes to sustain those born on 3rd base. The problem with this fear is the definition of small business. How many small businesses net over two hundred fifty thousand? They must have the allusion that drip down economics is real.

It is difficult for people who have never been wealthy to realize the degree of hardship a family living on 25 million dollars a year would suffer if they only made 24 million. It has been estimated that if Bill Gates worked 14 hours a day he would be making $150 a second and if he saw a $100 bill on the road on the way to work he would lose money if he stopped to pick it up. My question is how much is enough?

Philosophers and economists have varying opinions as to whether the wealthy should pay more taxes for the benefit of the less fortunate. Prominent philosopher Robert Nozick endorsed the principle that a transfer of holdings is just if and only if it is voluntary, a principle that would seem to follow from respect for a person’s right to use the fruits of the exercise of his self-owned talents, abilities and labor as he sees fit, but acquiring these holdings must be acquired legally without causing others harm. His conclusion is “the taxation of the redistribution sort in which modern states engage in order to fund various programs of a bureaucratic welfare state is morally illegitimate.”

A contrasting view is that of philosopher John Rawl’s theory of justice. The existence of innate differences in ability makes Rawls’s conception of social justice especially acute and eternally relevant. If we were blank slates, and if a society ever did eliminate discrimination, the poorest could be said to deserve their station because they must have chosen to do less with their standard-issue talents. But if people differ in talents, people might find themselves in poverty in a non prejudiced society even if they applied themselves to the fullest. That is an injustice that, a Rawlsian would argue, ought to be rectified, and it would be overlooked if we didn’t recognize that people differ in their abilities.  No system can be called efficient if there is no alternative arrangement that improves the situation of some people with no worsening of the situation of any of the other people.

The support of either Nozick’s or Rawls opinions depends on your position in society or the luck of your accidental birth. A few excellent questions to spur discussions in high schools or college classes could be: if Donald Trump’s father had worked for minimum wages in the low income area of New York could he have built the Trump Tower or been as wealthy as he is today?

At birth my father placed one of Upton Sinclair’s books in my tiny hands. He had me listening to Studs Terkel at age ten. Besides that I’m very handsome which I discovered when in two different grocery stores. I haven’t looked at my self in the mirror with my glasses on for many years, but when two different widows in their 90s showed interest in me. I had to tell them my wife don’t allow me to date other women. This revealing experience is a result of genetics.


3 responses to “Philosophy+Sex

  1. Vicki Sue McKinnis

    Very interesting article. It’s good to have both opposing views represented fairly…..and I especially appreciate the last paragraph as it clearly summarizes and strengthens the message of the article.

  2. Who ever wrote the blog on Socialism needs to do some further research. Read one of my blogs on this subject as I was a member of the Young Peoples socialist part in the 30s.

  3. Socialism sounds good because it has noble goals to create a state where all people have their needs met. The problem is the execution. Who is the judge of these needs? It places others in power that is so easy to be corrupted. It takes away agency and incentive. It lends it self to greed and in practice is unsustainable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s