I’ve met so many interesting people via the internet. More specifically, Facebook. I’ve met people who are the polar opposite of me in belief that I, most likely, would have never met if it weren’t for Facebook and I feel I’m better for it.
But sometimes, people stupefy me. Even people I (mostly) agree with… I was on some blog/news site where people were discussing how it wasn’t fair that rich people had money and they didn’t.
I stated, something along the lines of, “They work/worked hard to earn their money. You can do the same if being rich is *really* what you want, then go out and do it.”
They agreed, but added “… but some people were born rich, like the Kings and Queens of England. Or some people got rich because of an inheritance, not because they worked hard, and that’s not fair. It’s not fair that they just get tons of money because they were born into a rich family…” It’s not fair some are born princes and princesses either!
They went on to say that those who were just born rich and wealthy should be made give their money to others. Not just a charity type deal, but they should legally have to give X% of their money away so no one would be richer than others. Because, according to their logic, if everyone had the exact same amount, the world would be a better place.
This makes no sense to me… Stating the obvious, someone so angry with their lot in life, that crosses their arms with a “That’s not fair! Hmph!” attitude is never going to amount to much until they change that sort of attitude. Insert The Labyrinth analogy/example.
They’re also not taking a lot of things into consideration. For instance, once you “spread the wealth” evenly, it’s not going to stay that way. Just using my children as a simple example proves that…
My children get the same amount of money for their birthdays. One of them holds onto their money for a bit, the other blows it immediately. In the end, usually always, one of them has more money than the other. So, according to this “spreading the wealth” rule, the one who saved his money should have to give half of it to the one who blew his money.
Now, maybe I’m a simpleton, but as I see it – that just punishes the one who has saved his money and rewards the one who blew his. How is this good economics….
I get that it may not seem “fair” that someone was born in to a boatload of cash. I’ve even thought it wasn’t “fair”. I was a teenager, but still… However, I’ve never felt they should give me some of their money. Making a law stating they have to give me some of their money has never entered my mind. I don’t think it’s fair that other people are born with an ability to play sports, write fantastic books, act, draw, paint, etc., but I don’t think they should be made give me some of their talent.
I seriously don’t think it’s fair that Michael Jordan is *so* good at sports. I think he should have to give some of his talent to me. I don’t want too much of it… Just enough so I can walk through a room without injuring myself. Or losing a sock…
I don’t think it’s fair that there are 13 pro-football teams that have never won the Superbowl. Even worse, there are 4 teams who have never even BEEN to the Superbowl. Some teams have been to the Superbowl SEVERAL times, like The Steelers and Cowboys. They have each been to the Superbowl 8 times, with 6 and 5 wins, respectively.
If you look at individual players, there are many who have gone to the Superbowl several times. Win or lose, you get a “ring” for having made it to the Superbowl. (The “Championship” Ring goes to the winning team. The losing team gets a “participation” ring. Basically, they get a ring for showing up.)
If we’re going to take wealth away from those who are rich only for being born to the right parents (or grandparents) in order to make it fair and even, I think the same should be applied to the Superbowl. Here’s what I propose: (Bear in mind, I’m not a sports person, so this is applied as is to the best of my understanding of football and info I can find on the net…)
Considering there are (approx) 96 people who have more than one ring, they should be made share those rings. The most rings any one person has is seven. Six people have six rings, ten people have five, 38 have four, 41 have three, and I can’t seem to find how many have two…
That’s (at least) 269 extra rings out there. (365 total, minus 96. Each of the repeat winners still keep one.) There are 4 teams who’ve never been, with (approx) 45-50 players per team, That’s about 200 players without rings. Once each of the repeat winners give all their rings away, keeping only one, there’s still 69 extra left over. Which could go back to the players who’ve been more than once. Starting with whoever had been most, sorted alphabetically when needed.
This seems fair and should be instituted.
I do wonder, though, how these people that constantly play the “It’s not fair!” card would feel if they had to give something up. You think they’d like it if they were forced into letting a neighbor, that lost his home to a fire, move in with them when they find out the fire was caused from the crack he was cooking in the kitchen? I certainly don’t…