An oldie, but a goodie. Hat tip to Alex for remininding me of this great interview clip.
Stated as well as can be. Yet, opposition is mounted continually against the proven principles that nothing enriches all members of society more efficiently than free market capitalism, of which we have very little remaining. Any of the proposed alternatives can only make all members of society poorer…on the basis that the distribution of wealth would somehow be “more equitable”. Whatever that means.
Equitable? Fair? In whose mind? And, for God’s sake, by what corrupt method do you imagine that the property of one man can be taken from him to be given to another? In the name of fairness, no less?
Does this make any sense at all? The promise of equality in guaranteed poverty can be superior to proven, if possibly less equal, prosperity? What in the world are we really trying to achieve?
Besides, any student of history knows that the greatest inequality of power, wealth, and liberty is always the outcome of socialism. That’s what happens when you concentrate power….every vice under the sun follows along with it.
If you want a more “equitable” distribution of wealth then make it easier for people to start a business, to hire workers, to keep and reinvest their profit. Try allowing people to prosper without the onerous oversight of 100 different government agencies that serve, really, to eliminate competititon and protect one class at the expense of another.
I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather live freely and have a reasonable, if uncertain, hope of prosperity and to keep the fruit of my labor than to be protected from the oh, so scary “risk” of my neighbor having more than me.
As anyone with sense of history (the factual sort) already knows, our “poor” are among the richest humans on the planet. If that’s not good enough, well, as they say in the military, “sounds like a personal problem, see the chaplain.”