Letters policy: Send by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org (no attached files, please, which can contain viruses); fax to 770-532-0457; mail to The Times, P.O. Box 838, Gainesville, GA 30503; or click here for a form. Include full name, hometown and phone number for confirmation. They should be limited to one topic on issues of public interest and may be edited for content and length (limit of 500 words). Letters originating from other sources, those involving personal, business or legal disputes, poetry, expressions of faith or memorial tributes may be rejected. You may be limited to one letter per month, two on a single topic. Submitted items may be published in print, electronic or other forms. Letters, columns and cartoons express the opinions of the authors and not of The Times editorial board.
I just read the column by Joan King on Tuesday, "Defining common good a tricky exercise."
Wow. What insight into creating a moral landscape based on the well-being of sentient creatures, and that we are far from being a moral people.
Too many children in poverty; OK, I agree with that. Too many people strung out on drugs; yes, OK, I can see a moral problem with that. Too much violence in our media and on our streets. Well, I can see a problem in morals there, also, but turning off the media in the former and supporting our police departments in the latter is, I feel, a better solution. But I can go along with the moral angle.
But then, here it comes, the moral problem of too great a gap between a wealthy elite and the average citizen. Really? And I would ask of Joan King: Just what size of a gap causes a moral dilemma? How much hard work, risk-taking, planning ahead, working your tail off, sacrifice and saving does it take to become immoral?
In case you are not aware, Ms. King, successful entrepreneurs lead the prosperity in this nation. It is the fact that you can achieve financial success by hard work that causes people to be hired, equipment to be bought, money to be borrowed and standards of living to be increased. To threaten this cycle with an atmosphere of share-the-wealth socialism presents no incentive to take the risk.
Of course, as the good journalists do at the start and end of an article so you are more apt to remember, King closes with, "but shouldn't they also swear to defend the well-being of its citizens against its enemies: corporate greed (OK we have laws against that if it is illegal) the abuse of power (I am with you all the way on that) and the excess of the super rich."
The super rich? What does that mean? You mean like Alex Baldwin or Barbra Streisand? Good luck on getting them to share the wealth.
For me, I'd rather ask a rich guy for a job, not a welfare recipient.