On Mon, 19 May 1997,Paul King wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 18 May 1997, Don Brayton wrote:
> >
> > ><snip>  I have no problem with someone else having wealth as long
> > > as they can not use it either to coerce me or to protect themselves from
> > > retribution for fraud. This latter is, for me, the premier issue
> > > surpassing all other socioeconomic and political considerations in
> > > importance.
> > >
> >
> > So the most importance principle in life is "don't commit fraud" and justice
> > is really just a matter having enforceable laws against fraud?

In the world of post Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroony humanism this may be the
only access to accountability we have ... moral or altruistic behavior
has been supplanted by the legal (largely , in fact only, to protect
corporations). We are our brothers keeper, but only if we can be sued
for the obligation.
> >
>
> I think that is an unfair interpretation. His statement was more
> complex than that. He also said that wealth should not be used to
> force others to do something they don't want.

Maybe I am missing the point but what else is wealth (as the concept has
meaning on this planet) good for? Furthermore, the accumulation of
wealth invariably means that you, the capitalist (the contemporary
euphemistic usage) have already forced “others to do something they
don't want”.

> So, If I buy a building
> I should not have the right to kick the tenants out on to the street.
> Or if I buy a coropration I should not have the right to fire
> everybody and move to Mexico. If human lives are affected by
> financial transactions, their rights should be respected above and
> beyond the rights of "ownership."

I neither know of nor can imagine an investor that subscribes to these
principles. Wealth, ownership, control, power, might (and the list goes
on) all mean something to the mentalities and moralities they validate.
Capitalists (the contemporary euphemistic usage) do not purchase rental
property nor do they purchase other capital(the contemporary euphemistic
usage) generating institutions to pick up where the welfare state left
off ( the Robert Owens of the world not withstanding).

> I think the part about fraud is
> really a minor point. In other words, the fact that I have wealth
> should not mean that I have the infinite power to arbitrarily do
> anything I want just because I feel like it. The poor have rights
> also.

I do not think the part about fraud is minor at all. In our society
(white North American), as the rights of the poor are encroached upon
(and in deed, often legislated away), the only recourse is, when
possible, to sue for legal/financial compensation. The challenge of
fraud, in it’s wider meaning, has taken on the trappings of a social
safety net.

My personal opinion is that the very act of accumulation of wealth or
property by the individual is an immoral engagement.


> "Show no favouritism to  your own discredit;  Let no one  intimidate
> you  to  your  own  downfall."  ---  Sirach  4:22,  NAB  translation

This is apropos of what ???? It looks like a simplistic and banal
platitude that might be found in the old testament (although I assume it
isn’t ... perhaps from some Judaic manuscript ????)

Rod Hauser