Pascal said:
"It's okay to be rich. Even VERY rich. It's just wrong to become rich by exploiting/robbing others. Which is frequent, but NOT universal. (For instance, what's wrong with being the lucky winner of the Lottery?)
If Microsoft's software was less infuriating, AND monopolistic to make matters worse, I wouldn't even bother dissing Bill Gates. Bitterness is just a waste of your lifetime's serenity."
Yes indeed. I've worked actively in dispelling bitterness and anger from my life, and I am much, much better for it.
Now consider Steve Jobs. Unlike Gates he seems to work for greater causes, and not prone to dirty business tactics. And yet he is a billionaire too. Also I don't think he gives a caca whether he is or not, he is much more interested in making new, cool and important things.I often hesitate to promote or endorse commercial products. The gut feeling is, why should I help somebody become richer without getting a piece? And yet I never have problems endorsing Apple's products. I guess the moral is that if somebody puts so much work and love into a product, you want to give something back beyond just paying the fair price for it.
Oooh, by excellent coinkindink, Silvia Hartmann just originated sending me some quotes of hers, and the first one I looked at was just on this subject!
"The wealthier you are, the more you have to give."
- Silvia Hartmann
8 comments:
"The wealthier you are, the more you have to give."
- Silvia Hartmann
How about instead saying: The wealthier you are, the more you WANT to give.
Read my lips: We don't have to anything in this life. It would be perfectly acceptable to be filthy rich and not give a dime to anyone. It's just that such would be an extremely boring lifestyle, and defeat the whole purpose of acquiring those riches in the first place. That's why we don't see it happening.
But implying that the wealthy have some kind of moral obligation to part with their money against their will, displays a serious lack of enlightenment. This particular logical fallacy is called sosialism.
It is a widespread idea. There are few countries on Earth which don't have a progressive taxation scheme.
Perhaps the idea was to say "the more you have so that you can give"?... It's all a matter of interpretation. The more you have, the more you can give. Provided it just occurs to you!
I'd like to point, for the record, that the photo near my quote really doesn't do me justice. Very poor resemblance. Makes me look many times nerdier than I usually am, honestly!
Yeah, but you look like a young man with a big future!
Funny, the wealthy people I've met "want" to give less. It's the poor, in my country at least (USA), who give over larger amounts to the needy, both in terms of total amount donated, and therefore also in terms of percentage of total wealth donated.
Every Christmas, the relatives of mine who live in trailer parks and work as clerks in grocery stores, spend hours after work packing "average" presents (teddy bears, action figures and dolls, model cars) for needy children who, otherwise, would get zilch under the tree. My rich relatives, to the contrary, give their own children horses and cars and houses.
"Daddy, I want a SECOND pony!"
(Verruca Salt, seconds after receiving her Willie Wonka golden ticket.)
Steve Jobs is more admirable than Gates, but just as John McCain is more admirable than Bush, they (Jobs and McCain) are still intolerable assholes.
Rich people who didn't inherit it did not manufacture their money - they got it from the market, the community. They do not deserve to waste money that their neighbors need to survive. It IS immoral to waste while your neighbor starves.
I'm almost begginning to change my mind about McCain. I'm a sucker for a repented a-hole who begins to take some very sound decisions. Like his stand on torture, for instance.
So I'm a hopeless optimist, sue me! ;-)
I don't like Republicans much, but even the Republicans today don't like Bush & Company much. That's really saying something. "With friends like that, who needs political enemies?" :-P
Post a Comment