Re: Deere Sober Conservatives

Chris Bellomy wrote:
E. F. Hokie wrote, On 10/29/08 8:12 PM:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:02:27 -0500, Chris Bellomy wrote...

E. F. Hokie wrote, On 10/29/08 7:49 PM:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:27:35 -0400, The Grand Beckoning wrote...

Obama NEVER SAID "redistribution of wealth." Sorry, he just didn't
say it.
"Spread the wealth around" is the same fucking thing.
No, it's entirely different.

"Spread the wealth around" can easily be taken to mean provide opportunities for more people than ever to earn wealth of their own.

"Redistribution of wealth" implies taking current wealth from those who possess it, and re-allocating it, which is objectionable to many.
>>
It's the same thing if your point of view is that of a hoarder
of the wealth generated by other people's productivity.

If I provide the means for the production, the wealth is mine to accumulate, assuming there are enough people willing to accept paychecks from me to do the work which generates said wealth.

If you provide the means for the production, then you should be
rewarded in approximate proportion to the value added by that
contribution. (That's not a moral argument; it's a rumination
about the meaning of money. Well, I guess it's also a moral
argument.) The real argument is always, what is the value added
by ownership? And by labor? If Marxists believe that labor offers
100% of the value, and libertarians the opposite, then I'm probably
right at 50/50, which is far left in today's America.

I don't think libertarians believe that labor offers 0% of the value. I think libertarians believe that everybody gets to choose for themselves (via the free markeet) what the value is. If everybody else apparently chooses to spend their dollars in a way you choose not to, that doesn't necessarily make them wrong.
.