TrackBack and Comment API URL

I think the real issue is the idea itself of forced redistribution of wealth. From each according to his abilities; to each, according to his need, etc. It's not for the government (or any of us, for that matter) to decide who can "afford to pay a little extra" and who can't. See also: http://lileks.com/screed/?p=31 But I admit, the parable is a bit thin. Perhaps if it had someone refusing to go to a movie starring an Obama supporter, instead giving the money to charity. Well, like 30% to charity and then just burning the other 70%.
Kevin
via BlogWorks :: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:47:04 GMT :: Permalink

Yeah, I can see the analogy there. I think I've just been so touchy about this after hearing the whole "Redistributing the Wealth" argument over... and over... and over again from the campaign. Though I personally disagree, making the argument that the government shouldn't be responsible for deciding who can pay "a little extra" is certainly viable and a valid point of view. I just think it's important to differentiate who is really going to be affected by this - it certainly wouldn't be the waiter making below minimum wage. :)
Steve
via BlogWorks :: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:55:10 GMT :: Permalink

Certainly, yes. We can definitely agree that the waiter is NOT the person to take it out on.
Kevin
via BlogWorks :: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:38:43 GMT :: Permalink