In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

Kenneth L. Wrote: Sep 21, 2012 11:37 AM
"you...beg the question by using your own definition of "redistribution." As some earlier comments have pointed out, simply taxing and acquiring something via government is not redistribution in the sense that Obama has used the term, or in the sense that socialists and communists have applied it." myself, Sept. 20 @ 10:52 am. Henry, you think you can wear us down by simply coming back with tired commentary already refuted on the same thread. Sorry, you lose.
jmg11 Wrote: Sep 21, 2012 2:41 PM
Hate to reply to myself, but the typo has got to go. It should read:

"The reader decides what you have accomplished, if anything."
jmg11 Wrote: Sep 21, 2012 2:00 PM
Dear Kenneth,

As a disputant, you are not in the role of judge. You do not inform us of the outcome of the disputation. You make your case, then recede confident that you have done what is possible.

The reader decides how you have accomplished, if anything.
The recently discovered tape on which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in redistribution is not really news. He said the same thing to Joe the Plumber four years ago. But the surfacing of this tape may serve a useful purpose if it gets people to thinking about what the consequences of redistribution are.

Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design. But if human beings have their own responses to government policies,...