Justice

FYI, I work evenings and usually listen to the radio while I'm working. Listen to Hannity most evenings and Mark Levin. The other night, Hannity was doing a "man on the street" type of interview with a lady who seemed very reasonable at first. She seemed to believe in a little socialism, but was getting a bit apprehensive about the current congress seizing control of every aspect of the US economy and its citizens.

Hannity kept picking on her, asking her if she believed the statement -- "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability."

She said she kinda agreed, yeah. Well, Karl Marx said that. So Hannity informs this lady that she's probably a marxist underneath it all.

She said something like "It isn't fair that some people are rich while others go hungry. The rich should be willing to share. It's only fair." She likened "justice" to "equality," but was really describing "egalitarianism," which is a different thing.

One of the first blogs I wrote here was about this subject, only I don't think I called it "Justice."

The lady on the Hannity show indicated that to her, Justice means that everyone has comparable incomes, comparable homes and other creature comforts. She singled out Mayor Bloomberg, saying he had millions of dollars that he shouldn't be allowed to have. He should give his extra money to others who have less than they need.

You know what? That's not Justice. That's not fair. Like, I would love to have Bloomberg's money, unfortunately, I failed to dedicate my entire life, risk my and my family's security, and work 22 hours a day for several decades building a media company. Shucks, guess I overlooked that.

So perhaps it's fair that Bloomberg has millions of dollars and I do not. That seems more like Justice to me than writing my congresspeople and insisting that they seize Bloomberg's money and give it to me because I need it more than he does. I mean, there is such a thing as "earning" it. I haven't earned it. Bloomberg did.

Additionally, because Bloomberg earned it, I haven't got any right to tell him what to do with it. It's his money, not mine.

And this all comes from this really silly idea the socialists have that there is only one pile of "wealth" in the world, divided up unevenly between the rich and the poor.

No, that's not how it works. Bloomberg did not get his money by picking pockets and snatching handbags. He created something new, produced something that hadn't been there before, and something that people were willing to pay him for voluntarily. The only role the government played in that was in recognizing Bloomberg's property rights, and protecting his right to develop his business and products as he saw fit.

Bloomberg probably borrowed money from other people, or sold them pieces of his company (shares of stock), but then those investors got more back than they put in.

It's a phrase that was contrived in the USA: to "make money." That is, to create it out of nothing but an idea. And it's more than money -- money is just a yardstick to measure value. What Bloomberg created was a new source of value -- something that other people are willing to pay for.

There's truly unlimited potential for creating value. When you grow broccoli, you create value -- for those who are willing to pay for it. When you clean a house and get paid for it, you create value. When you write a book or learn how to play the guitar well enough so other will pay you for it, you create value. It's amazing. It's about as close to magic as we can get on earth.

Socialists don't understand any of this. They don't understand creation, production, innovation, or the whole concept of market value -- the unforced willingness of others to pay you for what you do. To their way of thinking, there's only one potato in the world and only ever will be one potato in the world, though it may be owned by different people at different times. Socialists want to take that one potato and slice it into tiny pieces, ensuring that everyone (or at least their friends and fellow-travelers) gets a piece.

They don't understand that you can grow any number of potatos. In fact, every individual can grow just the number of potatos they want -- so long as nobody prevents them from doing so or steals their crop. Socialists just can't grasp that idea of human growth and development. In the US, this is all under their noses every day, and they believe it's evil and immoral. However, it is OK for them to appropriate and redistribute the potato someone else has grown. And they want to make sure that no one grows too many potatos too quickly. That wouldn't be "fair." Worse, they couldn't control it.

From another rightist -- Glenn Beck. He had a show on the other day with all black people in the audience. Kinda like a town hall. They were mostly conservatives, but with a couple liberals here and there.

Don't recall if it was Glenn Beck or someone else who talked about two brothers, one ambitious and productive, the other preferring to sleep on the couch all day. Beck said when you begin to "redistribute" the wealth the ambitious brother creates, handing it out to the non-productive brother, you end up destroying both of them. The result is that the ambitious brother gives up. Why should he work if he can't keep what he makes? And the non-productive brother has no reason to ever get up off the couch.

That's what's so inherently destructive about socialism, or "redistribution" or whatever you want to call it. It kills human aspiration, creativity, and growth. It sets arbitrary limits about what anyone can do or have. It establishes a centralized authority that makes those decisions, rather than allowing individuals to make their own decisions.

And no matter what name you give to socialism or redistribution, it certainly isn't Justice.