I came across an interesting quote from Alfred North Whitehead a few days ago:
In the wake of the recent passage of the health-care reforms legislation architected by the Obama administration, I couldn't help likening the pattern and structure of this rather astute observation to the two different kinds of attitudes towards the subject of distribution of wealth -- If the conservatives believe in distribution of wealth, it is because they want to avoid being guillotined; if the liberals believe in it, it is because they find it difficult to live with the guilt of gross inequity.
And an observation on the side to go with that, as a corollary -- There are those who believe in reducing economic disparities because they hate the rich and there are those who believe in it because they feel for the poor.
If a dog jumps in your lap, it is because he is fond of you; but if a cat does the same thing, it is because your lap is warmer.
In the wake of the recent passage of the health-care reforms legislation architected by the Obama administration, I couldn't help likening the pattern and structure of this rather astute observation to the two different kinds of attitudes towards the subject of distribution of wealth -- If the conservatives believe in distribution of wealth, it is because they want to avoid being guillotined; if the liberals believe in it, it is because they find it difficult to live with the guilt of gross inequity.
And an observation on the side to go with that, as a corollary -- There are those who believe in reducing economic disparities because they hate the rich and there are those who believe in it because they feel for the poor.
Goes back to my view in an earlier post about how what really makes sense is to rise above the emotional and moral plane on which these arguments have typically been fought, and take the issue of distribution of wealth to a more transcendental level, where the only thing that matters is focusing on the goal of sustainability as a design goal for society.
