On Sun, 4 May 1997 11:14:41 -0700 Tresy Kilbourne <[log in to unmask]>
writes:

>Is your point that grinding poverty is ennobling? If so, the most
>psychologically healthy societies should be El Salvador, Peru, etc.
>Actually I can see an area where this principle might indeed be justly
>employed. Most wealth in this country is inherited, which means that
>the inheritor did NOTHING to earn it. Moveover, we can see the
pernicious
>effects of letting heirs keep this wealth in the examples of the Royal
>Family, Donald Trump, the Johnson and Johnson family, etc. Why not
>levy an inheritance tax of 100% on this unearned wealth and ennoble
these
>self-esteem-lacking individuals? Or is your argument that poverty
>ennobles *poor* people only? Self-esteem for thee, but not for me?
>

I apologize for letting the analogy speak beyond my intent.  Let me start
my response with a subjective premise or belief as it were.   Any
species, including humans, have an unlimited capacity for reproduction.
The boundaries to reproduction are created by  the availability of the
resources of sustenance: water, food, shelter, protection from parasites,
predators and enemies to name the basics.  Humans can ponder the
significance of this while most of our observations indicate that other
species can only react to changes in their environment.  In any species,
some individuals are in a margin close to their survival limit:  unable
to obtain water, unable to obtain food, sick, under attack, to belabor
the obvious.  In the human context, we label them generally as
dependents, and specifically, the aged, the immature, the infirm or
simply of diminished capacity.  All of these have my respect in as much
as they are trying to survive.  Those who are indolent or criminal do
not.

I do not see where "ennoblement of grinding poverty" comes in.  There is
nothing noble about a starving child. Do you remember the picture in Life
Magazine of the Negro child, crouching in near death weakness while a
vulture waited patiently nearby.  The image affects me still.  Would I
have passed by? Would I have committed myself to his survival? Something
in between?  Should I drop my current pursuits and look for similar end
games to divert?  Is the fact of my dedication to my own wife and
children enough? That African image was surpassed only by a more recent
Haitian scene of children's corpses idly piled by a door like so much
unwanted merchandise ready for Goodwill (I believe 3/15/95 USNWR). The
same questions arose.

You left out DuPont.  Fools and their money are soon parted.  Indolent
heirs and their fortunes are protected and picked over by lawyers as we
can observe ants protect and pick over aphids in their little aphid farm.
 Not so severely that they die, but they sure don't have any kind of a
life that causes me envy.  As they, their lawyers and their bankers churn
and invest the wealth we have the opportunity to earn and grow our
communities.  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.

Thanks for your comments.

Don Brayton