Ladies and gentlemen, I consider my point as proven. As you can see this fellow seems to believe rich people get there money from some where else than poor people (probably from their own assholes who know?) and he doesn't seem to be aware that people are actually ending up with nothing but survival food all around the world.
If you think the same please just pass through and vote for Trump. You've been brainwashed already.
You and you're Socialist buddies on this thread are implying that wealth is a zero sum game. This is completely false.
Can we agree that wealth is relative at least? What I mean is that in a country like the USA, if you make $50,000 per year you are by no means wealthy compared to Bill Gates. However, in comparison to a homeless man you might be considered wealthy. Even a welfare recipient in the USA could be considered wealthy when compared to a beggar in third world Africa. Does that make sense? Of course Socialists all have their own little ideas about what would be considered wealthy vs poor and constitutes fairness.
Anyway, let's pretend we live in a more basic economy because what you (and all Socialists) tend to do is disconnect modern society from economics. Say I'm a farmer who claims a piece of vacant land. I clear it, build a home, till the soil, and plant a crop. Each year I consume 75% of my crop, but I save the other 25%. This is called producing wealth. It's the basic economic idea, which is common sense to most people, that you would consume less than you produce and save the rest. The rest of this savings can be consumed later or it can be exchanged with your neighbors for different types of goods, which you lack the time or skill-set to produce yourself.
Now in that example, if I was to do that consistently for 20 - 30 years, you might say I'd become "wealthy". Again, wealth is relative, so doing this by hand I'd certainly be wealthier than some people. If I was innovative and bought some tools and scaled up my production I could become even wealthier.
Please explain where I deprived anyone else of their freedom to produce and become wealthy for themselves? Where did I steal from the poor in my example?What you are also failing to realize is that the money of a rich person is wealth that
was ALREADY produced and
exchanged for money. Their money sitting in a bank is doing no harm to anyone. If they choose to never spend it, that does not harm to anyone. It is the equivalent of the farmer who produced excess food or cotton and put it in a warehouse. Morally speaking, he has no obligation to give it to anyone, nor does anyone have the moral right to force it from him. If that farmer had a lot of profits (excess production) and he chose to trade it for firewood, then he could store his firewood in a barn for as long as he chooses. He's really only hurting himself by choosing not to spend (consume) it at some point.
You see, your problem is that you are observing poor people in modern society and instead of being rational and getting a basic understanding of economics, you are confusing yourself and blaming others. You're unable to strip away the layers of complexity in this admittedly very complex society we live in. It's normal, but it's also very dangerous. You are setting yourselves up to be emotionally manipulated by politicians who will always hide behind the facade of good intentions, while promising you "your fair share" of someone else's property.
This article can probably explain it better:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#3cb1e2db7c1cYes....If that was the way things worked. But it is not the way things work! One doesn't "really" go next door and trade the fruits of their labor in an equal exchange for the fruits of the neighbor's labor because that WOULD be a zero sum outcome, and that would be a form of socialism. Ask yourself: Is that what the cotton farmers did to accumulate their wealth? Or, is that what the oil barons did to accumulate their wealth?
EDIT: In the article you referred to it gives this example to illustrate the point:
"Lets break that down a little. Suppose Robinson Crusoe is tired of trying to scoop up fish with his hands and figures out how to turn a tree branch into a spear, increasing his daily catch tenfold. Can Friday, who never thought to make a spear, properly complain that Crusoe has received an unfair distribution of fish?"
("When It Comes to Wealth Creation, There Is No Pie," accessed at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#1420e5cd7c1c, on 03/02/2016)
Friday MAY have a right to claim that Crusoe received an unfair distribution of fish. In fact, in most places around the USA that is exactly the stance and that is why Departments of Fish and Wildlife set limits on the number of fish one may catch and keep. Those fish are not his...they belong to the world like air, water, and sunlight.
Is that such a hard concept to grasp? There are certain things in our sphere that belong to the world which no single entity has the right to spoil or plunder, even if they come up with innovative ways to do so. If I found a way to take your wind, does that mean I'm justified to take it?
Some things are just common sense.....
Socialism is unnecessary to deal with scarcity of resources. In fact, it does a poor job.
If you believe in the will of the people as a reason for Democracy, than why would the will of the people change in a free market?
Take poverty and homelessness. People claim we need the welfare system otherwise the poor would starve in the streets. Politicians campaign on this lie and because people believe it, they will vote for that politician because because they desire that poor people are cared for. Remove the political bullshit and do you think people will stop caring for the poor? Of course not. If you think otherwise, than you fall into the category of assholes that think they know how to spend peoples money better than those people can. Most socialists do tend to have a holier than thou attitude, hopefully you're not one.
Demand for environmental protection and management of scarce resources does not need to be assigned to a government monopoly. If there is a demand for conservation than the market will provide it and because the ideas on how to solve this problem would be in a competitive market environment, it's a virtual guarantee that the problem would be handled much better.
People tend to not care as much about things that they don't own. Common areas are generally abused, oceans are overfished, etc. Private ownership of common areas is the solution to the economic tragedy of the commons.