Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[bripat9643]

I know, but we do not have voluntary exchange in our society. Instead, we have political and crony capitalism in our society, so welcome to reality.

Horseshit. Of course, there's also plenty of compulsion in our society. For evidence of that just look at your pay stub. All the amount deducted from you check are examples of plunder. "Crony capitalism" is what Obama and the Dims endorse.

How do you declare ownership over limited resources that benefit mankind as a whole?

When you acquire them through voluntary exchange, you own them. That's how. Perhaps someone originally "declared" ownership, but if that's illegitimate, then so is every government on the face of the Earth.

 

[Antiderivative]

I know, but we do not have voluntary exchange in our society. Instead, we have political and crony capitalism in our society, so welcome to reality.

Horseshit. Of course, there's also plenty of compulsion in our society. For evidence of that just look at your pay stub. All the amount deducted from you check are examples of plunder. "Crony capitalism" is what Obama and the Dims endorse.

Go back and read what I wrote. I agreed with you, dumbass.

When you acquire them through voluntary exchange, you own them. That's how. Perhaps someone originally "declared" ownership, but if that's illegitimate, then so is every government on the face of the Earth.

How do you acquire natural resources through voluntary exchange? How does a person acquire water rights? How do oil companies acquire oil rights, especially when it calls for wars and overthrowing democratically, freedom loving Presidents?

Where on the market does this freedom of exchange happen regarding our natural and limited resource ownership occur?

 

[Againsheila]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?

Define "earned", because many people's wealth do not come from people earning it.

I define wealth as someone producing something of value in an free market context. However, we are far from a free market, so my definition of wealth does not carry much weight in our current paradigm.

You certainly didn't read my posts and most here won't either.I'm normally detested for speaking the truth.
No problem. My guys will arrive in another 2 hours and we'll get to work. If they have any problems I'll take care of it. NO MATTER WHAT.
I can't do what I do without my workers.That is the American way. Success via the efforts of others.I'm a socialist. My guys and their families are 100% covered.I'll go without before they have to. That's a given.
A.D. You are super intelligent. Carry on , thanks,and avoid all lies.

That's what it's all about. People seem to think the workers aren't worth anything and the CEOs actually deserve to be paid 500-1000 times what their workers are when the truth is, without the workers there would be no CEO.

 

[thereisnospoon]

GE paid no taxes last year.

The super rich had their rate cut from 26% in 1990 to 17% today.

45% of Americans pay no federal income tax.

We don't have a spending problem, we have a tax problem.

GE paid no corp income taxes because the Obama admin saw to that. GE's promise to further Obama's green energy initiative got GE most favored corp status..Voila! No taxes!.
The federal government has ALWAYS had a spending problem.
The bean counters tell Capitol Hill that X amount of dollars in revenue is expected over the next ( pick a period). The budgets are then written based on those figures. The problem is no one on Capitol Hill or in the White House ever stops to consider what to do if the money comes up short.
It's almost as though politicians are afraid to go back and say "Sorry, we have a budget shortfall. We will be cutting this and that."
What should occur is if in the event there are revenue issues, no one section of the country is excluded from cuts. Neither would any program.
If the budget is 5% short, then every item in the budget gets cut 5%. Tough darts. Deal with it.
Thing is the word "cut" is used as a political bludgeon.
Even when a program's INCREASE for the next fiscal year is reduced, those who support said program label the increase reduction as a "cut"...
So for instance if the Federal Dept of Education is looking at a 4% increase instead of a 5% increase the teacher's unions across the country call that a "cut". That's bullshit. An increase is not a cut. But the useful idiots in the MSM go right along with it and report the increase reduction as a cut. Why? Because somebody in DC said it was.
I really despise politicians.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I know, but we do not have voluntary exchange in our society. Instead, we have political and crony capitalism in our society, so welcome to reality.

Horseshit. Of course, there's also plenty of compulsion in our society. For evidence of that just look at your pay stub. All the amount deducted from you check are examples of plunder. "Crony capitalism" is what Obama and the Dims endorse.

Go back and read what I wrote. I agreed with you, dumbass.

When you acquire them through voluntary exchange, you own them. That's how. Perhaps someone originally "declared" ownership, but if that's illegitimate, then so is every government on the face of the Earth.

How do you acquire natural resources through voluntary exchange? How does a person acquire water rights? How do oil companies acquire oil rights, especially when it calls for wars and overthrowing democratically, freedom loving Presidents?

Where on the market does this freedom of exchange happen regarding our natural and limited resource ownership occur?

In most states, when one buys real property, they are also buying all mineral and water rights. I believe Texas is the only exception. Miner rights were by law ceded to resource producing companies such as gas and oil firms.
now, if I buy a home, the water and all minerals under that land belong to me. SO if for some reason I have decided to dig a well and oil starts gushing up to the surface, that oil is mine.
Better example....My brother-in-law went to Ohio Amish country last fall for a deer hunt.
He stayed with Mennonites. These are like Amish Light.
Anyway, these people have small oil rigs right on their properties. It seems that long ago some of the Mennonites accidentally got into a pocket of oil below their land.
These people, the rightful owners of the land also owned the mineral rights because that is how standard real property purchases work.
Please tell me you knew this.
Oh and if your asking how Exxon/Mobil acquires oil rights in foreign countries..Well now they don't. Most likely the host country simply buys the technology to get the oil out of the ground , pipe it and ship it.Exxon/Mobil like most other oil companies are the makers of the final product. In the past their expertise in exploration and harvesting of oil was used in exchange for those rights. The company pays royalties to the country in which the oil is located. Without the ability to harvest a natural resource such as oil, the rights are worthless.
This is really simple stuff which is easily referenced through search engines.

 

[Againsheila]

Horseshit. Of course, there's also plenty of compulsion in our society. For evidence of that just look at your pay stub. All the amount deducted from you check are examples of plunder. "Crony capitalism" is what Obama and the Dims endorse.

Go back and read what I wrote. I agreed with you, dumbass.

When you acquire them through voluntary exchange, you own them. That's how. Perhaps someone originally "declared" ownership, but if that's illegitimate, then so is every government on the face of the Earth.

How do you acquire natural resources through voluntary exchange? How does a person acquire water rights? How do oil companies acquire oil rights, especially when it calls for wars and overthrowing democratically, freedom loving Presidents?

Where on the market does this freedom of exchange happen regarding our natural and limited resource ownership occur?

In most states, when one buys real property, they are also buying all mineral and water rights. I believe Texas is the only exception. Miner rights were by law ceded to resource producing companies such as gas and oil firms.
now, if I buy a home, the water and all minerals under that land belong to me. SO if for some reason I have decided to dig a well and oil starts gushing up to the surface, that oil is mine.
Better example....My brother-in-law went to Ohio Amish country last fall for a deer hunt.
He stayed with Mennonites. These are like Amish Light.
Anyway, these people have small oil rigs right on their properties. It seems that long ago some of the Mennonites accidentally got into a pocket of oil below their land.
These people, the rightful owners of the land also owned the mineral rights because that is how standard real property purchases work.
Please tell me you knew this.
Oh and if your asking how Exxon/Mobil acquires oil rights in foreign countries..Well now they don't. Most likely the host country simply buys the technology to get the oil out of the ground , pipe it and ship it.Exxon/Mobil like most other oil companies are the makers of the final product. In the past their expertise in exploration and harvesting of oil was used in exchange for those rights. The company pays royalties to the country in which the oil is located. Without the ability to harvest a natural resource such as oil, the rights are worthless.
This is really simple stuff which is easily referenced through search engines.

Don't know what you are taking about...pretty much the only way you can get mineral rights is if you inherit the property. It's not included in the sale of the property anymore, the government has taken over the mineral rights.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Define "earned", because many people's wealth do not come from people earning it.

I define wealth as someone producing something of value in an free market context. However, we are far from a free market, so my definition of wealth does not carry much weight in our current paradigm.

You certainly didn't read my posts and most here won't either.I'm normally detested for speaking the truth.
No problem. My guys will arrive in another 2 hours and we'll get to work. If they have any problems I'll take care of it. NO MATTER WHAT.
I can't do what I do without my workers.That is the American way. Success via the efforts of others.I'm a socialist. My guys and their families are 100% covered.I'll go without before they have to. That's a given.
A.D. You are super intelligent. Carry on , thanks,and avoid all lies.

That's what it's all about. People seem to think the workers aren't worth anything and the CEOs actually deserve to be paid 500-1000 times what their workers are when the truth is, without the workers there would be no CEO.

Which people? And don't say "the CEO's"...That's a cop out. I'll even go as far to let you post the results of a poll that supports your claim.
BTW, you have it backward. Without business, there are no jobs.
The business creates the need for employment. Not the other way around. This is why labor is indeed a commodity. The actual workers are not, but labor in and of itself is the commodity.
To help you understand....
Let's say Home Depot and Lowes are building stores which will be located within the same community. Each store mgment wants the best applicants. So the managements will set their labor rates higher to attract the best candidates.
In effect labor, not the people themselves, but labor for those two stores is a commodity.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Go back and read what I wrote. I agreed with you, dumbass.



How do you acquire natural resources through voluntary exchange? How does a person acquire water rights? How do oil companies acquire oil rights, especially when it calls for wars and overthrowing democratically, freedom loving Presidents?

Where on the market does this freedom of exchange happen regarding our natural and limited resource ownership occur?

In most states, when one buys real property, they are also buying all mineral and water rights. I believe Texas is the only exception. Miner rights were by law ceded to resource producing companies such as gas and oil firms.
now, if I buy a home, the water and all minerals under that land belong to me. SO if for some reason I have decided to dig a well and oil starts gushing up to the surface, that oil is mine.
Better example....My brother-in-law went to Ohio Amish country last fall for a deer hunt.
He stayed with Mennonites. These are like Amish Light.
Anyway, these people have small oil rigs right on their properties. It seems that long ago some of the Mennonites accidentally got into a pocket of oil below their land.
These people, the rightful owners of the land also owned the mineral rights because that is how standard real property purchases work.
Please tell me you knew this.
Oh and if your asking how Exxon/Mobil acquires oil rights in foreign countries..Well now they don't. Most likely the host country simply buys the technology to get the oil out of the ground , pipe it and ship it.Exxon/Mobil like most other oil companies are the makers of the final product. In the past their expertise in exploration and harvesting of oil was used in exchange for those rights. The company pays royalties to the country in which the oil is located. Without the ability to harvest a natural resource such as oil, the rights are worthless.
This is really simple stuff which is easily referenced through search engines.

Don't know what you are taking about...pretty much the only way you can get mineral rights is if you inherit the property. It's not included in the sale of the property anymore, the government has taken over the mineral rights.

Nonsense.
Here's a link to the NC Marketable Title Act....North Carolina Real Property<br/>Marketable Title Act - A Partial Solution to Title Defects
This is a law that makes a distinction of rights on purchases of property re:mineral and other rights. While mineral rights are not automatically granted with the purchase of real property. Those rights are granted unless there is a mitigating fact. Such as the known existence of value in the minerals located below the surface. So, if a person purchases a real property where valued assets in the form of minerals are known, those rights must be negotiated between the buyer and seller. If the assets are unknown, then the buyer is purchasing the real property and all rights.
So for instance you offer for sale a real property and unknown to you there is natural gas under the surface. You sell the property as is. Later on, the owner to which you sold the property, accidentally discovers the natural gas and either contracts to harvest it himself or sells the rights to another party. You cannot go back and claim the mineral rights. You sold those rights when you and the buyer agreed to the terms of the sale.
The government has nothing to do with the mineral rights. At least in NC. Texas is a different case.
My friend's father in law once battled and lost to a small gas company that many years ago bought the mineral rights to the land on which the father in law's house sits.
The gas company decided to take a look at the adjacent land, found recoverable gas and began operations. The rub is the geologist told the father in law that some of the gas was indeed under HIS land. Under Texas law , the gas company had full mineral rights...Once again, no government ownership.
You should check on things before you post. It goes a long way to credibility.

 

[Uncensored2008]

GE paid no taxes last year.

Having a president in your hip pocket really pays off. GE made a good investment in buying Obama.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You make your choice at that moment ( and this moment) as to what you might do.
Are you a social democrat yet ? Or a ******* Nazi Jew piece of shit like your masters?
Sit down. read what I wrote, and decide who YOU are.
Get it ?

Too much meth, dude.

You should cut down.

 

[Againsheila]

You certainly didn't read my posts and most here won't either.I'm normally detested for speaking the truth.
No problem. My guys will arrive in another 2 hours and we'll get to work. If they have any problems I'll take care of it. NO MATTER WHAT.
I can't do what I do without my workers.That is the American way. Success via the efforts of others.I'm a socialist. My guys and their families are 100% covered.I'll go without before they have to. That's a given.
A.D. You are super intelligent. Carry on , thanks,and avoid all lies.

That's what it's all about. People seem to think the workers aren't worth anything and the CEOs actually deserve to be paid 500-1000 times what their workers are when the truth is, without the workers there would be no CEO.

Which people? And don't say "the CEO's"...That's a cop out. I'll even go as far to let you post the results of a poll that supports your claim.
BTW, you have it backward. Without business, there are no jobs.
The business creates the need for employment. Not the other way around. This is why labor is indeed a commodity. The actual workers are not, but labor in and of itself is the commodity.
To help you understand....
Let's say Home Depot and Lowes are building stores which will be located within the same community. Each store mgment wants the best applicants. So the managements will set their labor rates higher to attract the best candidates.
In effect labor, not the people themselves, but labor for those two stores is a commodity.

Gee, how sweet of you. People like you...believe the workers aren't worth a living wage. Doesn't matter that the CEO makes so much more than the workers, only the amount of work you can get out of the workers and the lowest you can pay them. Smart people realize that the company wouldn't be there without the workers and the workers are worth a living wage, possibly even more than that depending on the profits the company makes.

 

[Antiderivative]

In most states, when one buys real property, they are also buying all mineral and water rights.

Actual wealth comes from production, not ownership.

Please tell me you knew this.

Please tell me why you think I am an Amish scholar and hip on their affairs.

Oh and if your asking how Exxon/Mobil acquires oil rights in foreign countries..Well now they don't. Most likely the host country simply buys the technology to get the oil out of the ground , pipe it and ship it.Exxon/Mobil like most other oil companies are the makers of the final product. In the past their expertise in exploration and harvesting of oil was used in exchange for those rights. The company pays royalties to the country in which the oil is located. Without the ability to harvest a natural resource such as oil, the rights are worthless.
This is really simple stuff which is easily referenced through search engines.

Except when they start foreign wars of aggression and overthrow nascent democracies to increase their profit margins.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's what it's all about. People seem to think the workers aren't worth anything and the CEOs actually deserve to be paid 500-1000 times what their workers are when the truth is, without the workers there would be no CEO.

Which people? And don't say "the CEO's"...That's a cop out. I'll even go as far to let you post the results of a poll that supports your claim.
BTW, you have it backward. Without business, there are no jobs.
The business creates the need for employment. Not the other way around. This is why labor is indeed a commodity. The actual workers are not, but labor in and of itself is the commodity.
To help you understand....
Let's say Home Depot and Lowes are building stores which will be located within the same community. Each store mgment wants the best applicants. So the managements will set their labor rates higher to attract the best candidates.
In effect labor, not the people themselves, but labor for those two stores is a commodity.

Gee, how sweet of you. People like you...believe the workers aren't worth a living wage. Doesn't matter that the CEO makes so much more than the workers, only the amount of work you can get out of the workers and the lowest you can pay them. Smart people realize that the company wouldn't be there without the workers and the workers are worth a living wage, possibly even more than that depending on the profits the company makes.

I know where you're coming from Sheila but we have to separate compassion from politics from sense of entitlement from economics because those are four entirely separate things.

Compassion is on a personal level. You see somebody in trouble or distress and you do what you can to help.

Sense of entitlement is the belief that one should be able to have what somebody else has and the government should make that other person give it to him or her.

Politics is advancement of oneself or personal goals through persuasion or forcibly requiring others via government or votes to give us what we want.

And economics is the perceived or anticipated results of private commerce, industry, trade, investment, and management plus government regulation and mandates.

There is no compassion when immediate or short term solutions result in much larger and longer duration of pain or problems. If you cost many people jobs or income via forcibly raising wages for others, that is not compassion.

There is no morality or righteousness in forcing one person who acquired his/her wealth ethically and legally to furnish it to another whose only claim to it is a sense of entitlement. Most see that as legalized theft at best; as a new form of slavery at worst.

Politics that engages government in the process of using one taxpayer's property in order to buy votes or influence from another is the most corrupting process in all our society.

And in economics, labor is a commodity just like everything else involved in the cost of providing goods and services. The law of supply and demand applies to labor too. Just like energy or raw products, when labor is plentiful and easily acquired, it will be worth less than when there is full employment and business has to compete for good, competent, reliable employees. Artificially increase wages in a recession or slow down, and you will decrease available employment for all.

The emphasis should be on encouraging growth and expansion in business to obtain full employment and force companies to compete for qualified people. That invariably will also increase wages. Some will still have to hire in at entry level minimum wage, but the good ones won't stay there for long. And the overall effect will be positive for everybody.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's what it's all about. People seem to think the workers aren't worth anything and the CEOs actually deserve to be paid 500-1000 times what their workers are when the truth is, without the workers there would be no CEO.

Which people? And don't say "the CEO's"...That's a cop out. I'll even go as far to let you post the results of a poll that supports your claim.
BTW, you have it backward. Without business, there are no jobs.
The business creates the need for employment. Not the other way around. This is why labor is indeed a commodity. The actual workers are not, but labor in and of itself is the commodity.
To help you understand....
Let's say Home Depot and Lowes are building stores which will be located within the same community. Each store mgment wants the best applicants. So the managements will set their labor rates higher to attract the best candidates.
In effect labor, not the people themselves, but labor for those two stores is a commodity.

Gee, how sweet of you. People like you...believe the workers aren't worth a living wage. Doesn't matter that the CEO makes so much more than the workers, only the amount of work you can get out of the workers and the lowest you can pay them. Smart people realize that the company wouldn't be there without the workers and the workers are worth a living wage, possibly even more than that depending on the profits the company makes.

You play a tune with one note. It's the sound one makes when they are whining.
The value of a worker is directly proportional to their ability to perform the job for which they were hired at a wage that is appropriate for the position.
You make assumptions based on your emotions.
I am a business owner and an employee of another business.
My value to my employer is based on cost and performance. I strive to improve my skill set which includes finding ways to operate the business as efficiently as possible while keeping costs as low as possible.
In my own business, I will only accept work that will allow me to turn a profit.

Margins are tight due to competition. So I must keep my costs down.
Here's an example of how your notion that if there were no workers the company would not exist is false.
Let's say the XYZ Widget company decides they need to be more competitive. The management looks for ways to get their product to market cheaper and faster. If XYZ does not do this, they will face the wrath of their investors.
So, XYZ finds these automated computerized machines to produce their product at a fraction of the cost. XYZ decides to lease the machines and train some of their workers to run them. They pace the machines at a small plant in another state. The new operation is a success. XYZ decides the new equipment is the way to go.....Now XYZ needs far fewer employees. Those with the aptitude to learn the new technology are offered the opportunity to stay on with XYZ. The other people are no longer needed and are offered severance packages and thanked for their service.
The company dictates to the labor market the level of employment that is needed. Not the other way around.
On a smaller scale, a construction company owner and his partner tired of the hassles of finding good people to do the work, become frustrated with the entire process and the general attitude of the construction labor market decide to forgo hiring any more employees and also lay off the ones they have. The partners decide to do the work themselves. The company exists without the labor.
Once again, labor requires business. Business does not require labor.

 

[snjmom]

Which people? And don't say "the CEO's"...That's a cop out. I'll even go as far to let you post the results of a poll that supports your claim.
BTW, you have it backward. Without business, there are no jobs.
The business creates the need for employment. Not the other way around. This is why labor is indeed a commodity. The actual workers are not, but labor in and of itself is the commodity.
To help you understand....
Let's say Home Depot and Lowes are building stores which will be located within the same community. Each store mgment wants the best applicants. So the managements will set their labor rates higher to attract the best candidates.
In effect labor, not the people themselves, but labor for those two stores is a commodity.

Gee, how sweet of you. People like you...believe the workers aren't worth a living wage. Doesn't matter that the CEO makes so much more than the workers, only the amount of work you can get out of the workers and the lowest you can pay them. Smart people realize that the company wouldn't be there without the workers and the workers are worth a living wage, possibly even more than that depending on the profits the company makes.

You play a tune with one note. It's the sound one makes when they are whining.
The value of a worker is directly proportional to their ability to perform the job for which they were hired at a wage that is appropriate for the position.
You make assumptions based on your emotions.
I am a business owner and an employee of another business.
My value to my employer is based on cost and performance. I strive to improve my skill set which includes finding ways to operate the business as efficiently as possible while keeping costs as low as possible.
In my own business, I will only accept work that will allow me to turn a profit.

Margins are tight due to competition. So I must keep my costs down.
Here's an example of how your notion that if there were no workers the company would not exist is false.
Let's say the XYZ Widget company decides they need to be more competitive. The management looks for ways to get their product to market cheaper and faster. If XYZ does not do this, they will face the wrath of their investors.
So, XYZ finds these automated computerized machines to produce their product at a fraction of the cost. XYZ decides to lease the machines and train some of their workers to run them. They pace the machines at a small plant in another state. The new operation is a success. XYZ decides the new equipment is the way to go.....Now XYZ needs far fewer employees. Those with the aptitude to learn the new technology are offered the opportunity to stay on with XYZ. The other people are no longer needed and are offered severance packages and thanked for their service.
The company dictates to the labor market the level of employment that is needed. Not the other way around.
On a smaller scale, a construction company owner and his partner tired of the hassles of finding good people to do the work, become frustrated with the entire process and the general attitude of the construction labor market decide to forgo hiring any more employees and also lay off the ones they have. The partners decide to do the work themselves. The company exists without the labor.
Once again, labor requires business. Business does not require labor.

You are confusing wage earners/employees with labor. In your example, you have replaced human labor with machine labor and the partners labor is labor.

Basic economic scenerio. Man catches one fish every three days with his hands. The fish is consumption good. Man fashions spear using Land, the fallen branches of a tree that no one claims ownership to, Labor, and Enterprise. The spear is now capital. Man spears 3 fish a day, increasing the production of a consumption good.

Without consumers, there is no business. If the consumers are too broke to buy your product because you have eliminated all labor, which is what consumers bring to the market, or reduced it to subsistence levels then you better be in the subsistence business.

Sense of entitlement is the belief that one should be able to have what somebody else has and the government should make that other person give it to him or her.

Or the sense that because you received it, you earned it.

Let's say Home Depot and Lowes are building stores which will be located within the same community. Each store mgment wants the best applicants. So the managements will set their labor rates higher to attract the best candidates.
In effect labor, not the people themselves, but labor for those two stores is a commodity.

No longer true. Management will hire illegals before it raises wages.

 

[editec]

Wealth WILL redistribute.

That is inevitable.

The question, the ONLY question worth asking ourselves is this:

How do we ALLOW that to happen?

Do we pretend that we live in a truly capitalist system where market forces are the ONLY way that it is done, or do we finally admit to ourselves that our system has never truly been capitalistic and acknowledge that some of us are on top of heap mostly due to history over which we personally had no control?

This is, and always has been the debate of civil societies.

How to share the benefits and responsibilities of societyin a way serves the people and their society?

 

[DiamondDave]

Or the sense that because you received it, you earned it.

Or the sense that because someone else has it, and you don't feel they should or that their efforts are as 'hard' as yours, you are owed it at their expense thru a redistribution system

 

[Foxfyre]

Wealth WILL redistribute.

That is inevitable.

The question, the ONLY question worth asking ourselves is this:

How do we ALLOW that to happen?

Do we pretend that we live in a truly capitalist system where market forces are the ONLY way that it is done, or do we finally admit to ourselves that our system has never truly been capitalistic and acknowledge that some of us are on top of heap mostly due to history over which we personally had no control?

This is, and always has been the debate of civil societies.

How to share the benefits and responsibilities of societyin a way serves the people and their society?

We HAVE been in a truly capitalistic system so far as government not meddling with redistribution of wealth. That started changing under Teddy Roosevelt and has been snowballing ever since resulting in the economy that we are experiencing right now.

The confusion seems to be in the definition intended by "General Welfare".

Some seem to think that gives the government license to take what Citizen A earns and give it to Citizen B who did nothing to merit it.

I think the Founders intended it to be government promotion or initiatives that benefit rich and poor alike without prejudice and without respect for who needs something and who doesn't.

For instance roads from point A to point B are appropriate projects for government as it is unfeasible for everybody to building their own road. So the road that is built benefits all, rich and poor alike. If the road is primarily to benefit Citizen B and not everybody, then in my opinion, it is not a project government should be involved in.

 

[Wiseacre]

Wealth WILL redistribute.

That is inevitable.

The question, the ONLY question worth asking ourselves is this:

How do we ALLOW that to happen?

Do we pretend that we live in a truly capitalist system where market forces are the ONLY way that it is done, or do we finally admit to ourselves that our system has never truly been capitalistic and acknowledge that some of us are on top of heap mostly due to history over which we personally had no control?

This is, and always has been the debate of civil societies.

How to share the benefits and responsibilities of societyin a way serves the people and their society?

We HAVE been in a truly capitalistic system so far as government not meddling with redistribution of wealth. That started changing under Teddy Roosevelt and has been snowballing ever since resulting in the economy that we are experiencing right now.

The confusion seems to be in the definition intended by "General Welfare".

Some seem to think that gives the government license to take what Citizen A earns and give it to Citizen B who did nothing to merit it.

I think the Founders intended it to be government promotion or initiatives that benefit rich and poor alike without prejudice and without respect for who needs something and who doesn't.

For instance roads from point A to point B are appropriate projects for government as it is unfeasible for everybody to building their own road. So the road that is built benefits all, rich and poor alike. If the road is primarily to benefit Citizen B and not everybody, then in my opinion, it is not a project government should be involved in.

If I remember right, shortly after our founding the federal gov't looked at the issue of federal funding for building a canal in upstate NY I think. Not sure if it was the Erie Canal, but anyway they decidied against it because it only benefited some citizens rather than all. Which should be the primary concern at that level it seems to me. We gotta get out of the business of deciding winners and losers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Correct Wiseacre. Up to T. Roosevelt, every President and Congress pretty much resistedthe temptation to use the people's treasury for any form of charity, benevolence, or limited benefit.

Our Founders had a lot to say on that:

"Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society. "
-- John Adams, Novanglus Letters, 1774

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Declaration and Protest of Virginia, [1825]

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison

"It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense.... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs."
-- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations [1776]

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin

And beyond:

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.