Scandals lead execs to 'Atlas Shrugged'

USA Today ^ | 9/23/02 | Del Jones

[copycat]

Well, how about this sentence? "My point is that, morally, the rich man should be giving of his own free will, and if he is not, he creates a vacuum in which the weaker amongst us will attempt to loot him."

That's should, not must. That's not being compelled.

I gave this some thought today. I was considering the three Christian values of Faith, Hope, and Charity, and applying my statements more broadly.

I imagined that a lack of Faith among the people would lead to moral relativism and an increase in immoral behaviors. I considered that a lack of Hope among the people would lead to cynicism and apathy, with less and less people participating in the public arena. And I confirmed that a lack of Charity would lead to desperation among the weak, not only weak in material goods, but weak in character such that they would seek to use government to take from those that had.

You say Charity should be your choice. So do I. But I wish merely to alert those who withhold Charity when they are more than able to give it should not be surprised when the poor, represented do-gooder politicains, knock at their door.

In addition I find the virulent reaction to the suggestion that a lack of CHarity leads to socialism to be most illuminating.

Thank you for making me think harder about this. FReegards...

[copycat]

PS. I still don't see how "should be giving of his own free will" gets twisted into "compelled."

[Jason Kauppinen]

"should be giving of his own free will"

Why?