Re: Deere Sober Conservatives

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:33:08 -0500, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
wrote:

Randolph M. Jones wrote, On 10/29/08 11:17 PM:
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.

That's not really true due to the fact that, with labor, there are
always more sellers than buyers, so the actual value of labor is
understated in compensation. If you choose to view labor as a sort
of commodity, imagine comparing the value of the shovel versus that
of the digger. A glut of shovels doesn't alter the actual value of
the shovel to the business, even if it cheapens the price.

Because I morally and economically object to the notion of labor
as a mere commodity, I find the compensation of labor as though
it were to be offensive and wrong. It violates both our obligations
to each other as fellow human beings as well as the intended purpose
of money.

IMNSHO. YMMV. HAND.

cb

If left alone, the market works. It sometimes works in spite of the
above hippo hockey - but it's getting tougher and smellier.

Hugh

.