You didn't earn what you have all by yourself

[_ajax18]

Apparently it's not our country either. Just open up the borders and let it devolve into looking like every other Latin American country. Give it away. I don't care anymore.

[_Droopy]

The difference between that level of wealth and what he enjoyed as a Federal Express executive was due entirely to the synergy of society.

Wrong. It was due entirely to his own behavior, decisions, personal application of all he knew and had been taught, and his personal, freely willed actions in applying what he knew and the skills and aptitudes he had to the opportunities created by economic and social liberty. The synergy of which you speak is an innate and natural effect of a vast number of free human beings cooperating and competing with one another to better themselves by serving each other.

So long as government does not corrupt, distort, or destroy that freedom, and provides the fundamental components - civil and criminal courts of law, protection of contract and property, law enforcement, and guarantee of the unalienable rights of the individual - of civil society under which human beings can work, save, invests, risk, thrive, and live their lives in peace, the synergy will take care of itself. Government does not create nor provide that synergy.

It is not the synergy itself that causes certain individuals to become rich, but their own volitional choices and actions through which they become a successful part of that synergy - helping to maintain and reproduce it for others. In other words, any specific individual is rich if and only if he has created or provided something to his fellow human beings for which they have rewarded him with that wealth.

All the state can do, without working harm, is to protect, guarantee, and insure the natural and unalienable rights of the human family and protect individuals from violations of those rights, both from other individuals, and from government itself - the most egregious violator of natural human rights in all human experience.

The truth is that the article is right—the rich couldn’t be rich without a rich society supporting them.

And where did this "rich society" come from? How was it formed in the first place?

[_Bond James Bond]

Apparently it's not our country either. Just open up the borders and let it devolve into looking like every other Latin American country. Give it away. I don't care anymore.

We did make the Native American's country look like Europe...

[_ajax18]

Apparently it's not our country either. Just open up the borders and let it devolve into looking like every other Latin American country. Give it away. I don't care anymore.

We did make the Native American's country look like Europe...

Where would they immigrate to if we had not?

[_Bond James Bond]

Where would they immigrate to if we had not?

They could have stayed home as you want immigrants from South America to.

[_MeDotOrg]

A big part of who has money and who doesn't is because of military might and the willingness and ability to assert and enforce your rights.

So Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Luxembourg are all prosperous because of their vaunted military might? Or was it the vast colonial empires that they controlled?

Germany and Japan enjoyed their greatest prosperity AFTER they stopped trying to be military powers.

In his book, "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers", Paul Kennedy makes the case that the decline of a great power often begins with military overreach.

Financial success comes from lobbying and being able to manipulate the government to help you assert your rights if you do not possess such military force yourself.

So the golden rule is "those who have the gold make the rules"? How does this work in a democracy? Is the principle 'one man, one vote' obsolete with the Citizens United ruling?

It seems that much modern political thought in America ties itself in a cognitively dissonant knot trying to simultaneously believe in a unlikely mixture of the gentle Jesus and Ayn Rand.

I am reminded of a quote from your Avatar, Stonewall Jackson. After the retreating Union Army ransacked the town of Fredericksburg, one of Jackson's aides said “What can we do about this kind of barbaric behavior?”

“Kill ‘em", replied Jackson. Kill ‘em all.” And Jackson was known for being one of the most religious Confederate Commanders.

[_ajax18]

So Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Luxembourg are all prosperous because of their vaunted military might? Or was it the vast colonial empires that they controlled?

Germany and Japan enjoyed their greatest prosperity AFTER they stopped trying to be military powers.

I'm not even talking about military might right now necessarilly as historical military might and the right to be landowners. The Vikings carried plenty of plunder back those nordic countries. Your list of financially successful nations who were not involved in military conquest is quite short. I'm not saying that military might was everything. But it was definitely a part of it. People who complain about slavery continuing to effect them 200 years later admit as much.

In his book, "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers", Paul Kennedy makes the case that the decline of a great power often begins with military overreach.

And I coud see that happening as well.

So the golden rule is "those who have the gold make the rules"? How does this work in a democracy?

It doesn't work very well for most people, but that's the way it is and the way it's always been.

“Kill ‘em", replied Jackson. Kill ‘em all.” And Jackson was known for being one of the most religious Confederate Commanders.

Like Jackson is the only general to have taken that philosophy. That's war. If you want to retain the property you work for, you had better be prepared and capable of doing just that. Otherwise, you'll always be forfeiting what you work for to thieves.

[_ajax18]

Where would they immigrate to if we had not?

They could have stayed home as you want immigrants from South America to.

That would require patience and sacrifice. People only care about what is good for me right now. And if we're willing to let them take the country, why not? They're the victors. They're not going to stop their aggressive rate of human reproduction just because they can't financially afford it. They're going to send them here to be our financial burden, to train, educate, and find jobs for.

[_Analytics]

The difference between that level of wealth and what he enjoyed as a Federal Express executive was due entirely to the synergy of society.

Wrong. It was due entirely to his own behavior, decisions, personal application of all he knew and had been taught, and his personal, freely willed actions in applying what he knew and the skills and aptitudes he had to the opportunities created by economic and social liberty.

You are wrong. When the exceptionally talented character of the movie had nothing but his own “behavior, decisions, personal application of all he knew and had been taught, and his personal, freely willed actions in applying what he knew and the skills and aptitudes he had" to the opportunities created by not only completely free economic and social liberty, but also the endowment of an entire lush island, he had barely enough not to starve to death.

That is all those things are worth by themselves.

It is not the synergy itself that causes certain individuals to become rich, but their own volitional choices and actions through which they become a successful part of that synergy - helping to maintain and reproduce it for others. In other words, any specific individual is rich if and only if he has created or provided something to his fellow human beings for which they have rewarded him with that wealth.

Every CEO who was rewarded for utter failure at his job with an eight-figure severance package is proof that riches aren’t always tied to actually providing value. People get rich based upon what they successfully negotiate—not by the actual marginal value they contribute to society.

In any case, has anybody told you how cute your naiveté is?