🚀 go-pugleaf

Various people have given various arguments over time in favor of
income/wealth redistribution.  I find some points of such arguments to
be persuasive.  (Note: I won't choose to debate them in this forum,
because they are not highly germane to the commercialization and
privatization of the Internet.)

But even a flaming liberal like me starts to have problems with plans
that *mandate* how the redistributed resources will be used.

It's a bit paternalistic for one to say to a lower-income person, "I am
going to take resources away from one set of people and give it to you
*provided that* you use it for Internet/e-mail, and the reason is that
*I* have decided that this is in *your* best interest."

I'm not wiling to tell anyone else that I know better than them how to
use their resources.  Who's to say that a year of Internet access is
'more important' to a poor person than, say, books for their children,
or an improved diet, or, for that matter, going to a restaurant or a
movie from time to time?  Not me.

Given the value of an educated electorate to a democratic society, we do
mandate choices in establishing public education.  (This isn't without
controversy, however.)  

Perhaps one could contend that Internet/e-mail also is critical to an
educated electorate and is therefore justified.  But that's a stretch.
By the same logic, one might provide free TVs to the economically
disadvantaged so that their children can watch Sesame Street, or free
cable service so they can get The History Channel.

If there is to be income/wealth redistribution, I think it's best done
on a macro level, without getting into micro-level spending decisions.

Pete
______________________________________________________________________
Peter J. Farmer                    E-mail: pfarmer@strategies-u.com
Strategies Unlimited               Voice:  +1 650 941 3438
201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 205  Fax:    +1 650 941 5120
Mountain View, CA 94040            WWW:    http://www.strategies-u.com
  

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian Bartholomew [mailto:bb@wv.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 11:13 AM

>Perhaps you should back up a few steps, and justify why it's in the
>middle and upper class' interests to give money to the poor.  I would
>expect to see arguments like "if you turn the poor into peasants they
>will riot", "feudalism takes most players out of the economic game",
>etc.  Justify handouts to the poor as an investment in middle and
>upper class lifestyle.  I'm sure there's something to your position,
>just explain to me what it is.  Treat it as an exercise to teach
>idiots like me who came through the US school system.