Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
Maybe we have a fundamental disagreement on what taking care of one's self means. You don't think wealthy people have to take care of themselves? Then who does it? Not the state, who?
|
I could argue that the most wealthy people have been given their wealth by their ancestors.
That's one way a wealthy person wouldn't need to take care of his or herself.
Wealthy people have assets to invest. Further wealth comes from those investments, the investments their counselors make for them.
Unless you're going to argue that wealthy people have to learn to live from paycheck to paycheck and know what it means to make ends meet, then I don't see how you would dispute the fact that poor people are more self-reliant than wealthy people.
Now on to your last comment about the role of the state:
How do you come up with the conclusion that the state does not look after the interests of the wealthy?
Is it not understood by you that the wealthy pay the bulk of the taxes?
The wealthy cast the majority of the votes
The wealthy own vast resources, and those resources are proteced by law enforcement and military, social systems and social stabilty.
Do the wealthy not benefit from civil infrastructure?
Who will pay for the rebuilding of New Orleans, as a poignant example?
It will come from public coffers, yet the public does not benefit from it's significant trade relevance in the ways that capitalists benefit.
I don't see how you can simultaneously hold the notion that the rich pay the bulk of the tab for this government, they are able to fund interest groups to ensure their interests are secured on the Hill, yet you don't think the state is taking care of them in return for their patronage.