>>>>>Like a lot of conservatives, you mistake individual economic greed for quality of life.
>>>>>
>>>>>And like a lot of liberals, you want to punish success. I believe that people have a right to enjoy what they have worked so hard to achieve.
>>>>
>>>>Being part of the society at large and the more able paying a higher portion of the bill are not new concepts, nor are they punishment.
>>>>
>>>>I sense in you the same thing I do in Jake -- that you look at everything in economic terms. When that's the case I'm sure it's easy to disregard other things and look at society in a Darwinian way. I don't remember exactly how Jake put it yesterday but he basically said for the system to be strong, the weak have to be allowed to fail. That's it, they fall by the wayside, end of story. Well, I don't agree.
>>>
>>>Speaking of the so-called "social Darwinism" (or the repackaged rat race), it's not even a nice abstraction, because it's simply inaccurate. It neglects the development of social services, safety nets (and all other "bleedin heart librul" or whatever terms were used to disparage these ideas) are a social mechanisms evolved exactly to counterbalance the niceties of the initial accumulation and capitalism as survival of the greediest. Evolved, i.e. part of the same social Darwinism, if you want. They were invented, and have taken root, because they satisfy a social need. Had the need not been there, the invention wouldn't have happened, or would have been an evolutionary dead end.
>>>
>>>Of course, with good propaganda you can convince people that they don't need milk, they need Coke, or that redistribution is just when you take from the poor to give to the rich, but unjust when it's in the other direction.
>>>
>>>OTOH, I have to agree with Marcia in one point - any system that's supposed to catch the thieves and give the loot back to the people usually ends up rewarding the thieves and punishing those who live well because they work a lot (soft or hard, can't say, being biased towards software) and have results that satisfy a need, which brings money. This has happened on both three sides of the rusty curtain, and just shows that no system is immune to corruption. Which does not mean we shouldn't try to do it right - take back from the thieves, and reward the diligent.
>>
>>The only thing I am confused about is how it came to be assumed that everyone who is successful is a thief?
>
>I for one certainly never said that. Have enjoyed plenty of success myself and have paid more than my share of taxes. I just think a progressive income tax system is the way it should work. And I have never noticed it sapping my desire to succeed.

As I said before I don't know anyone who has been made poor by taxation.

Interesting piece today in The Guardian about equality in society and its relaionship with all sorts of quality of life measures.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/12/equality-british-society