>

Hi, Sam! I've been a regular reader of the RinkWorks forum since its inception, but this is my first foray into the Wide World of Message Posting; as such, allow me to offer cordial greetings to the regulars before I begin.

Now, with the amenities taken care of, bravo. I couldn't possibly have said it better. It saddens me to see the amount of bitterness and even outright hatred which is often directed toward America's rich, because the folks doing the directing often don't seem to realise that a) the vast majority of the rich achieved their success by producing goods and services beneficial to others, as you noted, and b) the fact that the rich have more influence than the poor is a sign of a just society, not of an unjust one.

The previous entries in this thread which displayed an unfavourable opinion of the rich unilaterally centered on the increased influence over one's fellow citisens enjoyed by the financially successful. However, it is crucial to note that the influence being referred to is economic rather than political: the "mark on society" which they can make with their money is limited to that which they can leave by trading with others on a mutually beneficial basis. Unless it is used to buy political influence - and I don't think that government corruption is what the original posters were referring to - money cannot be used to coerce; it is solely a tool of persuasion and not one of force.

In a free society, where it is not permissible to bend others to one's own will through the use of force, the only way to induce others to act in one's interest is by offering them something of a value sufficient to persuade them that it is worth their while to do so. "The rich" are nothing more than individuals who have produced a great deal of value by providing goods and services to others. As such, it stands to reason that, as they are able to offer more value to others in return for services rendered than are those less wealthy, the rich are most able to influence the path society takes. There's nothing unjust about this; in fact, it would indeed be unjust if rich and poor were equally able to influence others, since it would imply that those without sufficient money to attain their ends through trade were allowed to resort to the use of force.

In short, the fact that the rich enjoy more economic influence than the poor means that ours is a society in which free trade, and not coercion, is the accepted means of influencing others to serve your ends. I think that's great. It's a telltale sign of liberty.

Chand"making up for lost time through sheer word count"ler