John Grund: “Some years ago, a friend and I were walking on a downtown street when a homeless man came walking the other way. My friend said, ‘Did you know he’s part owner of the Statue of Liberty?’ I was stumped for a moment, then replied, ‘Right, like we all are part owners of the Statue of Liberty.’ Over the years, that example has stuck with me. I work at an investment bank, where ownership of assets — and the privileges of owners — becomes a religion. I keep getting stumped by the example of the homeless man: If he owns an equal share of America, from the highways to the parks to the aircraft carriers to the public buildings, why is he destitute? Why is the owner of a share of America destitute, while the owner of a share of America plus a run-down duplex gets enough to live on? I hear the recipients of public ‘safety net’ benefits, including subsidized health care benefits, described as ‘moochers,’ ‘the undeserving poor,’ ‘people who don’t understand how capitalism works,’ and worse. Why not describe them as ‘owners’? Does that change how the arguments sound? I think it does — it makes the safety net seem like a small, probably inadequate, way to give them a proper dividend on what they own. There are a lot of reasons to think that people have a right to health care — religious reasons, moral reasons, ethical reasons, practical reasons. If a person finds none of those reasons compelling enough, perhaps the fact that every American is an owner will be convincing.”
Source:
Andrew Tobias: A Shining City On A Hill
John Grund: “Some years ago, a friend and I were walking on a downtown street when a homeless man came walking the other way. My friend said, ‘Did you know he’s part owner of the Statue of Liberty?’ I was stumped for a moment, then replied, ‘Right, like we all are part owners of the Statue of Liberty.
davidbruceblog #1 