>And who are you to tell
>Bill Gates, or anyone for
>that matter, how much he
>can make and how much
>he can't? Also, Capitalism
>doesn't demand that Bill Gates
>keeps any of his money.
> It is his own
>choice whether to keep it,
>volunteer it, or give it
>up completely.

Who is he to take form others? What exceptional skills and/or transcendental powers does he possess that are deserving of $90,000,000,000?


>However, in socialism you are not
>allowed to even reach the
>potential of a Bill Gates
>because the "community" has this
>authoritarian intellect that tells them
>you dont need it as
>much as they do.
>Therefore, an argument can be
>made that under a socialist
>state the high-tech inventions and
>discoveries that were made today
>would have at least been
>postponed, due to lack of
>motivation and competition.

A very common argument. I would like to know two things:

A: Do we really as a society need all this technological crap.
If we had more free time, we wouldn't be chatting on this board we would be discussion socialism in a bar somewhere over a beer (or water if you don't drink).

B: Is it ever gonna end? Will we ever reach a point in society where wel will finally say "we have arrived" (i.e. no more innovation is necessary.)? At which time we would direct our energy toward improving what already exists. If not, then what the hell are we working for (besides transferring wealth to Bill Gates)?


JMello

"...it's about past 7 here, so we're actually in different timelines."

"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but my predecessors, as well. And that's why I made the decision."

"I'm about to name my brother the ambassador to Chad."

"They don't seem to be flocking in right now, but it is dove season in Texas. I'm a hunter and if I decide to shoot some dove, I'll shoot 'em and eat 'em."

--President-Select George W. Bush--