> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article cb08lr$4i4$3@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/19/04 11:33 AM:

>>> If the banking system disappeared tomorrow, the poor would be poor.
>>> Gates would be MUCH poorer. If the military and police disappeared
>>> tomorrow, the poor would still be poor, and in crime-ridden areas.
>>> Gates would be in MUCH more danger, likely in a crime-ridden area.
>>
>> If the bank system would disappear tomorrow, there would still be some how
>> learn to beat the new system of bartering. If the military and police
>> disappeared tomorrow, the poor would have more crime and less crime
>> protection, and the rich would have private police forces. That has happened
> 
> Uh, the current group of rich would be hard-pressed to hire a
> paramilitary unless they could PAY them; with no banking system, etc.,
> how would they pay them? Microsoft stock?

No, if there is not money system, they would pay in bartered goods. Look at
what happens in areas where there have been such breakdowns. The temporary
collapse of banking systems, caused by political instability haven't really
eliminated the rich, it usually eliminates the middle class  and reduces the
number of rich, but the superrich remain.

>> in the past when governments collapse, and there is no reason it would
>> happen again.
> 
> Right. And at that point the poor run rampant, threatening the very
> lives of the rich.
> 
> QED.

The poor run rampant, but the paramilitary protect the warlords and the new
rich. That is what has been when governments have collapsed in Asia, Africa,
and South America.

> 
>>> etc.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> The poor also benefit from things, whether you admit it or not.
>>> 
>>> Again, you fabricate things, only to refute them.
>> 
>> You do not admit that the poor benefit from welfare, from roads, from
> 
> You are either wrong or lying, Mr Schaal. Take your pick.

No, I am neither. You were ignoring the benefits that the poor were
obtaining and I called you on it. Are you going to admit that the poor
receive more benefits in relation to taxes paid than the rich, or are you
simply going to rely on ad hominem attacks to sidetrack the discussion
> 
> The discussion is on who benefits the most from the government.
> 
> Mike

No, there was already agreement that the rich receive more benefits than the
poor, and that the rich pay more taxes than the poor. The discussion is on
whether or not the rich pay more taxes in relation to benefits received than
the poor and middle class do.