Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm
From: mwm@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Response to Anti-Reagan Tirade - (nf)
Message-ID: <10100021@ea.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Apr-84 17:00:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ea.10100021
Posted: Thu Apr 12 17:00:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Apr-84 06:46:54 EST
References: <646@pyuxa.UUCP>
Lines: 27
Nf-ID: #R:pyuxa:-64600:ea:10100021:000:1222
Nf-From: ea!mwm    Apr 12 16:00:00 1984

#R:pyuxa:-64600:ea:10100021:000:1222
ea!mwm    Apr 12 16:00:00 1984

/***** ea:net.politics / inmet!andrew / 10:14 pm  Apr  7, 1984 */
. . . thus perpetuating the existing inequities in the class structure. 

Andrew W. Rogers, Intermetrics    ...harpo!inmet!andrew
/* ---------- */

Enough silliness, all right all ready. You seem to object to the fact that
some people have more money than others, and are therefore able to *gasp*
buy themselves a better quality of life. Someone, somewhere back in the
ancestry of those able to afford a prestigious institution *WORKED* for
that money, and their descendants have been smart enough not to piddle it
away. Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy it? Better yet, if they're smart,
they can arrange that their children can enjoy it, too.

The major problem with "flattening out the inequalities" is where to stop.
After all, being to tall/short/fat/skinny/ugly are all "inequalities," and
change the quality of life. While we're mandating that everyone should have
the same income regardless of work/education, why don't we make them all
look alike. After all, the public can afford to pay for out of income taxes
(assuming anyone is silly enough to work for an income when doing so
doesn't change your income...).

	In favor of evolution,
	<mike