Maggie's Farm

h/t instapundit

http://newledger.com/2009/03/whose-money-the-new-debate-about-freedom/

(snip)

''Because of the way the world is made, this means that some people will receive a lot more money than others.

But is there truly any injustice in this? Consider the alternative. If we say that a baseball pitcher, or a top movie star, a great trader, a gifted entrepreneur, or even a well-motivated and hard-working local beer distributor should submit to an arbitrary salary cap, then what happens? The extra value created by that individual will go to other people, who are quite likely to be politically favored. The inevitable outcome is pervasive corruption.''

(end quote)

Above quote needs its context, but stand alone seems worthwhile. Our new admin is especially clever at setting conditions where power 'freely' flows from elsewhere to it.

Excellent visual clue: the tad-too-wide-eyes of the spokesmen answering questions on such.

MM, jappy, elsewhere in that article author uses a phrase something like, 'some people are worth more than others'.

I know he didn't mean it that way, but it did engender the thought that what a great country we have --r had --in that while one person's "product" might be worth vastly more (or less) than another's, both lives are equal before the law --a crime against either will bring out the state in defense. Perhaps not so equally at the very extremes, but only there, and there despite the law.

Jappy, Caesar's army could have re-crossed the Rubicon.

It would've taken quite an effort under a set of intolerable circumstances, but had those obtained, say if Caesar had led them astray and and the false leadership had begun ruining the republic, and another leader had arisen to point this out, there was nothing to prevent the army from marching back over the river.