bosun1":cy1nb8ix said:
...Profit is getting enough. Greed is getting too much. Probably two different numbers between me and "The Donald"!
I have no doubt that the two numbers are different, and therein lies the problem Bro'. Maybe if you were to sit down with Donald (assuming he would agree that it's any of your business), he might explain to your satisfaction why his number and yours don't jive.
In any case, you've identified the fundamental problem—namely that what you think is “greed” is your opinion, not the opinion of the person who owns the property involved. Perhaps you could persuade Donald that your opinion should overrule his. I doubt it, but at least that would be the honest approach.
But that's not the approach most people take. The usual approach is to get the politicians to act as a proxy for their opinion by forcing business owners to do their bidding under the threat of coercive interference. In other words, "If you don't agree with my opinion about how much is enough, I'll get someone who will
force you to agree." And the hired thugs are only too happy to assist you. They thrive on conflict. In fact, they depend on it.
It's the us vs. them approach—a zero sum game in which there
must be winners and losers. It's the classic approach of politics, and it explains why everything is such a friggin' mess. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every job looks like a nail. There are far better solutions that require no one to lose, and which create a helluva lot less conflict into the bargain. But not if we're going to insist that every problem is a nail.
I have found that "Don't treat other people the way you don't want to be treated" is a general operating principle that works pretty well for me. Part of that is not interfering with things that aren't any of my business. That's a matter of principle. Once you violate that principle and go down that road of
forcing others to do your bidding, where do you stop?
You may consider that a rhetorical question to which you need not respond. I know full well that others don't see it that way, and I suspect that we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point, and let it lie there, as you suggested earlier. That's OK with me.
:joker: