Hey Craig... wanted to respond albeit a little late...
It's a terrible analogy.
I'm going to return to Presidnet Grant for a comment:
"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
The analogy is simple enough... the wealthy aren't all criminals simply because they are wealthy nor is their wealth the rightful property of the public. Wealth gained through illegal means (collusion, felonies, etc.) is another story... I'm with you 100% on that. But their are a lot of wealthy who did actually work really hard for their money and took a lot of risks and made a lot of sacrifices to get where they are.
Your comment completely neglects the issue of the concentrated power and wealth that can come to exist beign a form of tyranny the public needs protection from.
I did not intend to neglect this issue... I just get sick of typing after a while. But I agree it is an issue. To string a few quotes together:
"power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
"money is the root of power"
So inherently... I think the wealthy, in general, cannot be trusted to behave ethically or morally.... some can but the majority cannot be trusted.
Of *course* the public can infringe on the rights and freedoms of a select few for the good of others - it's done every time they prevent slavery, prevent monopoly, prevent tyranny.
But it can't be done for small reasons, a degree of inequality for those who deserve more is good for the society.
Having money and having slaves are not literally the same thing... although it is closer in our society than I'd like to admit. So in, say, taking money from wealthy by mandate do you punish the innocence wealthy (who are upstanding, moral, and ethical) in with the lot in name of 'justice for all'... I say no. That provides a slippery slope of sorts.
That last is ideology, IMO false ideology. I see all kinds of very hard-working poor - and issues of inhumane situations for them.
People have plenty of incentives to be productive. They do better when they are not struggling for the basic needs. Base the statement on facts, not ideology.
And yet we have examples in history that show that pure socialist experiments always fail... because they do not heed that human nature is fundamentally lazy and self serving. If my essential needs were met I wouldn't work... ever, unless i had to... I'd rather go hiking or play guitar or go play basketball, etc.
There has to be a carrot and a genuine reward for hard work, intelligent risk taking, ingenuity, etc. Thus we need some elements of good old fashion capitalism and free trade principles. Now I grant you that these elements should be watched and carefully balanced to guard against what basically amounts to criminal activity.
Something like that will never pass here of course but I think it would be a good idea.
I think something like that has a lot of benefits. The people don't realize it, though.
We can always hope... and if we don't something like we will eventually reach a tipping point and we will have a French revolution on our hands. But the rich are often remarkably ignorant of history.
Facebook
Twitter