05 Mar '10 06:33>
Originally posted by rwingettI am not necessarily in disagreement with you. However I must point out that we have a similar system in the villages in Zambia. In general wealth and success are frowned upon. And when I say 'frowned upon' I mean you can be accused of witchcraft. There are many consequences:
The rich write the rules, which they write primarily to benefit the rich. In my universe to be among the richest individuals in a world where millions routinely starve would be crime punishable by death. At year's end I would smite the 100 richest people in the world. This would continue year after year until vast inequalities in wealth came to be universal ...[text shortened]... mount of sacrifice. That, my friend, is what any god worthy of the name should be doing.
1. People hide their wealth.
2. People do not strive for greater wealth as there is no benefit.
3. People who do want to succeed must go somewhere else (someone from somewhere else getting rich is more acceptable).
4. People squander excess wealth (spend it all on beer etc).
I am also not convinced that in the current world order, smiting the richest people would benefit the poor. There would be a competition to not be the richest, but that does not mean they would give to the poor or help the poor get wealthier. The only long term solution for the poor is giving them better education and opportunities - which is a long term plan - and I don't believe your proposal would make people think longer term nor be more generous.