Quote:Stealing money from a person through government force (or any other form of force) and giving it to another is a horrible thing in my book.


 

If profits have skyrocketed (and probably only true for the corporations that are favored by our rulers) it's because of corporate welfare and the government handing out money at such low interest rates that it's essentially free. Once again, it's government taking from one group by force and handing it to another that is the problem.

 

There is an inherent conflict between two ideals that most Americans ascribe to: private property rights and equality of opportunity.   Most people would agree that a child born to a poor unwed mother does not have the same level of opportunity that a rich kid has.   On the other hand, most people would agree that people should get the rewards in life that they earn, and if a rich guy wants to send his son to a private school, he should be able to do that.   So how do we level the playing field without completely throwing out the right to private property and the incentive to work hard?   We compromise.   And that  is why we have this mildly redistributive system that attempts to balance the right to keep what you earn and dispose  of it as you wish, against the right to equal opportunity and the American dream. 

 

If we strictly enforce private property rights, with no redistribution at all, we wind up with an aristocracy- a permanent upper class and a permanent underclass, where rich kids have it made without ever earning anything, and climbing out of poverty is almost impossible.   On the other hand, if we go too far in redistributing wealth, we kill all the incentive to work hard and succeed.  

 

And that's why we have a mildly redistributive system.   It's not communism.   I'm not sure what you'd call it.  It's a compromise. 

---