Musings of a late evening

Whilst reading about the unfortunate demise-by-exposure (shortly, possibly and even more unfortunately, maybe a 'doocing') of the blogger Jack Night (covered here, here and strangely here), I was engaged by the furore (in a blog-cup) over his "Evil Poor" post (the blog has gone but see here with yet more linky things in the comments).

Now, that got me thinking - always a dangerous thing.  Happy that the "evil poor" do actually exist, that they are a particular problem and that they are one overwhelmingly burdening on the non-evil (just to note that I am fully aware that the latter are the vast majority) poor.  Happy also that the "evil rich"exist  and the "evil moderately well off" and the evil ...  (Ed notes: stopped that with a brief application of 240V.)

What is the difference?  Might it be that impoverishment makes your search for subsistence the sole or overwhelming focus of your life?  The evil billionaire might be famed for the size of his yacht, the plasticity of wife No5, the vanity purchase of the football club etc, etc.  (Or even, to return to banking, the size of his pension!) The virtuous pauper (just to continue the moralistic fixatedness) is probably going to be considered a cleaner, a call-centre slavey (I can't actually think of a better word for their miserable existence), or a benefit-trapped proto-failure  than for their stunning personality, care for small animals, remarkable impressions of Monty Python actors or spectacular calligraphy.

Of course, I am being simplistic.  But then I'm a libertarian blogger so I'm just pandering to the stereotype.