My good friend Wm Corzine recently pondered:
Is it morally superior for the rich to take from the poor through unfettered capitalism or for the poor to take from the rich through socialist policies? Since both involve a government-sponsored ‘redistribution’ of wealth, it is difficult to see which scheme is more ‘right’. Never mind the fact that whichever side a politician stands, his interest is, primarily, about votes and, only secondarily, at best, about what is better for the economy and the country.
My thoughts:
If all is in balance then life is good.
The less well off will always accuse the rich of taking advantage of them. And indeed they will.
The better well off will always accuse the poor of wanting to share in their acquired wealth. And they do.
One feeds off of the other. They both need each other. They both create each other.
There are tons of facts … but reality is that facts seldom matter.
As a libertarian-minded person I believe that minimal government regulation is best … and yet I know that on most days those with power, or able to buy it, will always seek to rewrite the rules in their favor while bemoaning the loathsomeness of those that they profit from. The counterbalance is that those without power have the power of numbers and the ballotbox … which they often sheepishly use.
If all is in balance then life is good.
