I know that when I enter a room full of people that I am not the smartest guy in the room. That’s why I need some help undestanding the philosophy of the Liberal/Progressives on wealth distribution. These people believe they have the moral high-ground because what they are doing is somehow more fair. Somebody pleases tell me what is moral and fair about taking by force of law the wealth from the more productive segment of our society and giving it ( after taking a rather large cut for administrative fees) to those that have not earned it. That doesn’t fit any concept that I know, of moral and fair.
What is their ultimate goal? How far do they want to carry this concept? How much more wealth should a person be allowed to have than another person? When do they achieve a “fair” distribution of wealth? And who decides what is fair? Are they going to arbitrarily pick a number, for example, $1 billion and decree that anyone that accumulates more than $1 billion must turn-over the excess to the government for redistribution. And, of course, any on-going earnings that would put them over the magic number will also be turned over to the government. In this example, does it make sense to the left that these rich people are going to continue producing more wealth even though they are not allowed to keep any of it?
Or ,is the true plan of the left to continue their redistribution until everyone has exactly an equal share of the wealth? That is absurd. We wouldn’t have an equal share of the wealth. What we would have would be an equal share of misery and poverty.
Are the liberal/progressives so myopic that they can not see that wealth redistribution did not work in Russia, nor in any of the Soviet-block countries, nor in Cuba, nor is it working in Venezuela? Can they not see what is happening today in Ireland, Greece, Portugal, and Spain.? The situation isn’t much better in Italy and France.
I think the liberal/progressives owe us the answers to my questions. Don’t you?