“Why, in free and open societies such as those of Western countries, are some people better off than others–not necessarily wiser, happier, nicer or more virtuous, but better off? The precise causes of differences in income and wealth are complex and various, and people will always disagree on how they apply to particular societies, groups, or individuals. But in substance such differences result from people’s widely varying aptitudes and motivations and also to some extent from chance circumstances. Some people are gifted, hard-working, ambitious and enterprising, or had far-sighted parents, and they are therefore more likely to become well off.
“In an open and free society [note that people like George Soros mean by “open society” a Fascistic system of generalized government controls of all aspects of the economy and the personal lives of individuals], political action which deliberately aimed to minimize, or even remove economic differences would entail such extensive coercion that the society would cease to be open and free. The successful pursuit of the unholy grail of economic equality would exchange promised reduction or removal of differences in income and wealth for much greater ACTUAL [emphasis mine] inequality of power between rulers and subjects.”
“When social scientists talk of social problems, the usually mean discrepencies between social reality and what they assume to be norms [ahistorically: these are actually posited desirable norms and not objective conditions to be found in actual human history]. Because they are largely preoccupied with discerning, announcing and emphasizing discrepencies between their assumed norms and reality, social scientists tend to GENERATE [emphasis mine] social problems rather than solve them.”
“In an open society income differences normally reflect the operation of voluntary arrangements [the negotiated agreement being less onerous than whatever the alternative was]. The absence of coercive power in most forms of successful economic activity is recognized in Dr. Johnson’s familiar observation that ‘there are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than getting money.'”
Note that Bill Gates did not rob anyone, but all Communists have.
“The accumulation of wealth, especially great wealth, normally results from activities which extend the choices of others, as is clear from the fortunes acquired in, say, mass retailing or the development of the motor car.”
“In recent years inequality has come to be used interchangeably with inequity, and equality with equity. That differences is a more appropriate term than inequality is also suggested by the accepted practice of referring to people’s physical characteristics, such as height, weight and strength, as differences rather than inequalities, and never as inequities.
“On the other hand, the term inequity is appropriate in discussing political power because that power implies a relationship of command between rulers and subjects. . .those who have political power can coerce others by restricting their choices, while wealth does not by itself confer such power on the rich.
“In contemporary parlance social justice has come to mean substantially equal incomes. Why should this be so? It is not obvious why it should be just to penalize those who are more productive and contribute more to output, and to favor those who produce less. This conclusion is reinforced when it is remembered that relatively well off people have often given up leisure, enjoyment and consumption, and that these past sacrifices have significantly contributed to their higher incomes.”
If you read Communist propaganda–which continues to be generated to this very day, albeit not generally under that precise name–you get this feeling that money is theft. All those houses on the hill were stolen from the people at the bottom of the hill. But look at America: almost all fortunes are first generation. These are cardiac surgeons whose parents were born in small villages in India or Pakistan. These are successful entrepreneurs born to average middle class parents.
And the list of the wealthiest American families has changed constantly since whenever it was first produced. Some names stay the same–notably those such as the Rockefellers, who can use the power of government to support and create anti-free market conditions–but most come and go with regularity.
“Major beneficiaries of redistribution include its advocates, organizers and administrators notably politicians and civil servants, who are NOT among the poor. This outcome promotes the self perpetuation of the process. . .On the national level, the operation of the welfare state comprises two quite different forms of redistribution: wealth transfers between groups, and redistribution of responsibility between between the agents of the state and private citizens. Welfare state policies do not always redistribute income between rich and poor [emphasis mine]. They do not necessarily redistribute income even among individuals. The same people may be taxed at some times and subsidized at others.”
As one example, the average wage earning has some 12.4% of their income AT LEAST taken out immediately to support Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Some amount more, depending on the State is further taken out to fund a State run unemployment fund. Low income individuals are also taxed with sales taxes in most states. Thus they pay in in one place, and take out, maybe, in another. The entity which wins EVERY time is the government, which is to say that large number of people whose paychecks are paid out of tax dollars taken from the pockets of everyone who works for a living.