We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, the 20th century’s most influential text on the nature of social justice, was controversial on the left because it provided a supply-side argument against the assumption that socialist equality was the end-all-be-all of distributive justice. Rawls recognized that incentives to production have something to do with levels of consumption and argued persuasively that unequal shares are justified if they leave society’s least advantaged as well off they can be. For many socialists, admitting that justice can possibly admit of unequal shares gives away the store. Rawls sold them out.
Yet Rawls himself, like many other mid-century social democrats, had an uneasy attitude toward enrichment, and tended not to see much to admire in the human motives or legal rights that tend to produce it. Rawls was a liberal who saw society in liberal terms as a “cooperative venture for mutual advantage,” but there was in Rawls’ theory very little appreciation of the possibility that liberal rights and economic growth might need each other. Indeed, he thought that, after a certain modest level of material comfort had been achieved, a regime of fair cooperation founded on liberal rights would do better—and would still be the most desirable of all regimes—without any growth at all. ..
There are endless, interesting debates to be had on this topic. From my standpoint, I like spare cash but value freedom over wealth. However, the core of freedom is private property. My vote is important in theory but trivial in effect.
It's a lot like saying that getting harassed by one's relatives and friends is the price one pays for winning a lottery, or even succeeding in business. It still boils down to envy and a sense of entitlement to the good fortune (and hard work) of others.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
The Democrats made a deal with the devil and decided to increase the numbers of the protected classes by unfettered immigration and free stuff in exchange for votes. So now the Democrat party has become the suicidal party and cannot let go of the tigers tail and must ride this to the bitter end.
Lest you think I embrace the Republicans they are the stupid party. They cannot possibly make the same deal (free stuff for votes) that the Democrats have and it is certain destruction to try and yet that is exactly what they do. AND worse, they do it soooooo badly. We are so screwed.