Saturday, April 26, 2014


Reductio ad Sensum Communem

I tried to write about the latest lefty embracing Marx on economics (via Thomas Piketty), again, but apparently you have to share at least one common tenet with your intellectual adversary in order to rationally discuss the subject matter at hand. It seems Joe Conason and I do not share a belief in even one common thing. Astounding.

So let me just ask this.

Isn't income equality the necessary by-product of freedom? If we are all free and equal before the law, won't some of us work harder, work smarter, and sometimes be more lucky and thereby make more money than others who work less, work stupidly and are unlucky and therefore earn less? This seems an absolutely basic truth to me. Am I missing something?

The cool thing about economic freedom is that through hard, intelligent work, with a little luck, anyone can get to the 1% of earners.

And in America, 20% of the population earn 1% income at least one year of their lives. 1 in 5! How great is that?

I seriously don't get why this sort of freedom is in any way bad.

Apparently you have to be on the left to see freedom as undesirable.

Labels: ,

I see this whole "income inequality" thing as the fallback position of the "social justice" types. Everything else they've tried has failed so far, so they're reduced to the never-ending objective of inducing class envy.

Kevin Williamson is now my fave author over at NRO (with Charles Cooke a very close second). Every one of his pieces is outstanding, well-reasoned and well-written.

Today's headline post:
With you 100% about NRO since Steyn decamped. Nearly everything those two write is good. I think it's class envy that's the greater problem than economic freedom's inevitable results. Better to put energy into trying to get to the top earner spots than stew about not being there. If you support the government's actions to reduce top earners' take home pay with ever higher tax rates, are you actually any better off? And regarding the top earner spots, 1 in 5 Americans get there in their lifetime. So it takes an effort but it's not a hopeless quest. Thanks for the comment, a superior one as usual.
"Aw, shucks," she said, scuffing her foot in the dirt. "I am not worthy of your praise." :)

I don't get the whole envy shtick: so long as I have enough, I simply don't care that you may have more than I. Fer shur, that could easily be because I've always had "enough." Or perhaps it's more that what I've had has simply always BEEN enough. (I suspect that my druthers are different than most: I'd rather have 1000 acres of meadows and trees with horses & dogs & a shack, than a 10k sq.ft mansion with a Jag parked in the forecourt. But I'll never have any of that, and THAT'S OK.")

I find it reprehensible that the Dem politicians actively promote class envy, trying to convince some that they should have, by some "social justice" human right, the same wealth, income, position as another WITHOUT HAVING TO WORK FOR IT.

Deliberately pitting one segment of a society against another has never benefited humankind, and is a betrayal of one of the foundation pillars of this country: that you can be whatever you can, and choose to, make of yourself.

So, where are your other two readers these days? No one's commented for it seems like weeks.
...still reading the Piketty reviews.
This makes marvelous sense:

Looks like it's just you reading this. Thanks for the link to Café Hayek. Sounds like my kind of place.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?