I have no beef with Paul Allen to be sure. This is only a discussion, for me, about balance, fairness. You use the phrase "..people should be rewarded for their hard work .." and at no point have I disagreed. But the notion that making a thousand times as much as the people who support you in your endeavor and work the same hours as you do, simply because you have a bit more talent, luck and drive than some of them, is simply a vulgar display of egocentricity. It has nothing whatever to do with fairness. Saying it is fair devalues every human being who had the talent but failed to be in just the right place at the right time.

Make no mistake, I do not expect nor "demand" that "life should be fair" .. that's not my position at all. But the discrepancy in wages between some corporate executives and the rest of us simply takes all meaning out of the word "fair" ..

Nothing you have said supports your view, you just keep saying that people should be rewarded for their efforst. Of course they should. But fair is fair, and saying they should be rewarded goes no distance at all towards determining in what manner and according to what guidelines of fair behavior.

Trying to arrive at a definition of fair should not be confused with applying my "values and principles to everyone in the world."

There needs to be a definition of fair, or not. But if you're going to discuss it, for gods sake, think about what you're saying. Fair equals compassionate regard for your fellow beings. I simply cannot see how you can make your blanket assessment that any imbalance, no matter how great, is fair "because people should be rewarded"

Lest you forget, our social structure is predicated upon the notion that if you do not conform you will be dispensed with. That means if you dont' like things, tough. Ownership of all the earths resources is predicated upon murder.

No structure can be sturdier than it's foundation. The foundation of all business is ownership of the earths resources, and that means that death awaits any who wish to restructure the way things are.

I submint that it behooves you to call it fair, simply because calling it otherwise would mean rearranging a fair portiion of your thinking, and that's not a comfortable prospect.

I personally don't care if it's fair or not. It's just life and death, we all have to come and go. What I want for myself is irrelevant to anyone else, and I can live with that.

But I care that we be precise and honest about what's going on instead of deluding ourselves. Murder for property ownership for the purpose of profit taking is not "fair" .. at least, not in my book. It might be in yours, if so, the discussion has reached a point of understanding.

If you were to take away "the law of man" for just short time you'd see just how fair life really is. It might take you a while to understand the shift in power that would occur, but that's what it would be about.

I ask you to think about how the ownership of the worlds resources has been established historically. Think about the mayhem that went into establishing that ownership. Think about what that means to the inhabitants of the world that one man might own all the coal, or all the water, .. etc. Think about how that translates to wage distributiton.

This is much a much bigger issue than you are addressing.

You should stop contradicting yourself. First you say:
then you say:
And pretty much the rest of your post preaches about how life should be fair. Life isn't, nor will it ever be fair. You seem to be upset because their are people that make more money than you. You can either do something about it, or you can complain on a message board about it.

high CEO salaries are quite fair. My father was a CEO and such salaries paid for my university degree (and that of my sister), I call that fair

Mind explaining this one to me? I'm having trouble seeing how you arrive at this conclusion. Perhaps some of it is, but I fail to see how every single bit (you did specify 'all'), is based on murder.

Is this an opinion you hold, or are you willing to provide proof of it?

Except that if you are correct, it isn't irrelevant to some people, because by drawing on your own logic, in order for you to get what you want for yourself, then they will have to be deprived of something (apparently someone's life). If I am incorrect in this assessment, please point out to me where this occurs.

I'm still failing to see where you're getting the 'murder' part from; if I wished to own a certain piece of property, then I would see my options as A) part with some piece of my own property, or B) provide some useful service, either option resulting in mutually satisfactory barter for the property in question. Option C) muder someone, never seems to cross my mind while dealing with such things.

I agree with Squires. No offense, but I get the impression that you are just complaining that people are more successful than you and make more money than you, but in the same sentence self-acknowledge that you don't have the same drive and determination and focus that they do at their careers.

If you know that putting in some more effort will lead to advancing in your career, why not just do something about it instead of complaining about those people who do?

Also, you say that people who work the same hours shouldn't make more money just because they have more talent and put in more effort. But in the next sentence, you praise someone for having talent and say that people should be rewarded for their efforts.

One of two things is happening here.. you have either made an honest mistake, or you have taken exception to me and thus are not interested in being accurate.

Attend: The statement "There needs to be a definition of fair, or not" does not contradict this one: "Make no mistake, I do not expect nor "demand" that "life should be fair"

It simply says that if you want to talk about what is fair, you have to define fair.

Then you go on to state that I've preached about life being fair, but you give no examples, because there are none.

What you have presented is an inability to understand what you've read.

For the record, I'll say it again: I do not demand that life be fair. I am on record in the very post you are misquoting as saying "I personally don't care if it's fair or not. It's just life and death, we all have to come and go. What I want for myself is irrelevant to anyone else, and I can live with that."

What part of that sounds like preaching as you've accused me?

My only point is that if we are to talk about what fair is, then we need to define what we mean when we say the word.

If this was an honest misunderstanding on your part, fine. But if you just want to make things up as you go along, please try to restrain yourself.

Finally, if you want to argue specific points which I have made, I'd be more than happy to.

I'm sorry to say this to you csgal, but you are simply wrong. My writing is not about impressions. I'm not an ambivalent person who "sort of states, kind of what he feels." I am as precise as I can possibly be, always. There is a little room for interpretation as I can possibly bring to bear within my writing. Where there is misinterpretation I am always ready to explain.

Your impression of my position might seem to stem from your dislike of what I'm saying, because it confronts your postion.

Precision in discussion often creates the impression that the person being precise has a desire for things to be one way or the other.

In reality I think the world is exactly as it "should" be, based upon the way man is "made". This is "who we are." If I were to let it upset me, I'd be a wreck. There are more inequities on this planet than one man could possibly document or even comprehend.

I just think that if people are going to talk, they should darn well be accurate.

What is entailed in thinking about the word fair? What image is conjured by it? Do these circumstances fit the definition upon close scrutiny? Or are we applying the lable because we "want" the lable to fit?

I don't want it to fit, because I have a very specific definition of fair. I don't believe in massaging my principles, my core beliefs, to fit things. I call it as I see it.

But I'm happy to be a relatively underpaid servant. I'm alive, warm, well fed, with a house of my own, a decent car, a good woman who loves me. The fact that I don't have a villa in Spain or a yacht, or other toys that I see around me is inconsequential. I live in my head and my heart. I live from compassion for my fellow man.

I sure as hell do not live "for" toys.

Read what you will into this. But if you misunderstand my words, then perhaps all you are doing is failing to respond to something you'd rather not consider to have any validity.

Why would that be?

I do so love it when someone understands and addresses what I've said rather. You think before you react, thanks.

As for murder, let's take just this country as an example and see if that's good enough for you.

We murdered the indians. Do you need proof of that? We took the land from them. That's the act that underlies all ownership of land and resources today. For Gods sake, look around. What do you think war is about? Just freedom? If you believe that, then there can be no discussion, I can't prove to you that we (often) go to war in order to avail ourselves of resources. That is the way of man.

Is it fair? That does not matter, it's just a definition of "fair" that I am seeking. I don't need to care about what man does. Sure, I'd like a perfect world, but it doesn't gnaw at me, I'm perfectly comfortable "letting" mankind be what mankind is. I'm not God, nor do I wish to second guess His purpose. I'm not here to do His Work as a preacher, as was suggested elsewhere in this thread. Man can duke it out, I just stay observant, and duck when necessary.

The issue under discussion, for me, is whether taking by force, to the point of murder, is a fair and equitable split upon which to base your structure of commerce, going forward.

I'm not saying you "shouldn't do it" .. I'm saying you cannot call it fair. Fair is a concept that describes something specific, that many would like to see. Good luck to them, but don't demean the word by assigning behavior to it that does not fit by any stretch of reason.

As for what's relevant, you've taken a turn with that.

My point was not about my actions in light of what I want, but that that my desires are irrelevant to the notion of what is fair. Personal emotion plays no part at all in the accepted definition of a word.

Are some men fair to others in light of their transactions today? Of course they are. But is it fair that one person makes millions while the next person, who may have a similar education and similar talents and may work just as hard makes only thousands?

Of course not. How the hell can anyone not see that? Why does everyone need to wrap their own desires up in a notion of fair?

It's as though people are totally unwilling to look at the meaning of words when their own desires are at stake.

That I want and am able to achieve the accumulation of vast wealth while my compatriot starves in the street is not a matter of fairness. If I tell myself otherwise I'm just a cheap lying jerk. If I admit it, then I know myself. Perhaps I know that I don't want to sink back to their level, and that "fair be damned, I'm going to keep what I got." That's acceptable, but has nothing to do with fair distribution of wealth.

I don't see what any of these latest rants have to do with the discussion about whether corporate executives rightfully deserve their salaries.

Isn't it obvious? CEOs kill Indians.