Prosperity should appeal to everyone. --- Mr. KimDictionary.com defines prosperity: 1. a successful, flourishing, or thriving condition, especially in financial respects; good fortune.
True. By definition, being prosperous is good. How individuals define prosperity might be different.
Any compassionate person would wish prosperity for all. The question is the means toward that prosperity. And what is the cost in terms of money and freedom?
I doubt it will be from taking from the rich and giving to the poor. --- Mr. KimBoth statements are biased. And each in a different direction. I question who has the right to make giving to charity a law.
Is ‘taking from the rich and giving to poor’ different from ‘redistributing resources more equitably among all peoples’?
Are we talking opportunity or assets? --- Mr. Kim
Assets equal resources. Access to resource is opportunity. The absence of resource is lack of opportunity.
Equality of opportunity infers better access to education, health care, fresh air and water, etc. for all. --- Mr. KimThe advantage of improving resources is that then everyone's assets can grow. Who should be the one doing this? Who can best do this? Who knows best what the individual needs?
Education, health care, fresh air and water are resources. Access to resource is opportunity. Equality of opportunity is Equality of ‘resource’. Resource equals assets.
I can't think of communist/socialist societies that have provided prosperity and equality of opportunity. So I'll say that Karl Marx is not good. --- Mr. KimI think the division of labor and the free market have contributed greatly to peace and goodwill. Not necessarily "intentional" goodwill, but knowing that you need your neighbor for your survival encourages you to treat her well.
I can’t think of any society were there is peace and goodwill toward all beings. Does that mean Buddha is not good?
Kennedy had it wrong when he said, "...ask what you can do for your country." --- Mr. KimHe should have said, "ask what your country can do for you." That is the basis by which many people will vote. I like better Abe Lincoln's "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." The cumulative effect should be awesome of everyone voting for a president that would make them more prosperous. Wouldn't everyone become more prosperous and therefore the country would be more prosperous? And prosperous in the way that people want to be prosperous. There is a "virtue to selfishness" as Ayn Ryan's book indicated.
Because he should have said . . .