The problem with socialism, as Mrs. Thatcher famously said, is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. The current rhetoric about the "rich' raises another question: Can the socialist ever be content? At what point does paying for an other's needs become paying for an other's wants?
The poor in the United States would be well off in most cultures. Are the needs of a man in Ohio different from those of a man in Bulgaria? Are needs relative, expanding with the expanding wealth of neighbors? Does disparity of wealth expand a man's claim beyond his need?
Or is the need of another man's wealth more simple?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment