From libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara:
Oh, sure, the economic egalitarians will trot out statistics galore. But statistics identify correlations, not causality. Try to get an egalitarian to cite an inherent causal direct link between one person’s earned success and another’s hardship, and you’ll get–nothing. In fact, the outsized fortunes since the 1970s were achieved by entrepreneurs building job-rich companies that provide mass market products to billions of consumers-in other words, that improve the quality of regular peoples lives. And the very size of the fortunes would not be possible if there weren’t a vast and growing prosperous middle class out there to buy what the new rich are producing.
The truth is, no one has ever presented a valid case against economic inequality as a problem in and of itself.
“Try to get an egalitarian to cite an inherent causal direct link between one person’s earned success and another’s hardship, and you’ll get–nothing.”
But why would someone do that? When addressing inequality, you have to address the collective. I know Mr. Collectivism is a blight on good, true, honest, moral society has trouble with that but… you can’t talk about statistics and then say ‘Because you can’t take a singular example and directly link it to another singular example’s counter-situation, than it’s bupkis’. That’s not how statistics work and doesn’t buttress the point he’s fabricating from the selfishness-first, selfishness-always miasma floating around in his skull.
Then there’s this powerful finale:
“Olen’s derogatory demeaning of happiness tells us something. I have long believed that the war on economic inequality is rooted not in justice but in envy, resentment, and a hatred of others’ achievement so virulent that it goes beyond greed to the simple desire to see the achiever fail.* That is the sentiment that’s really at work here. This goes beyond mere redistribution of wealth from “the rich” so that “the poor” can afford the stuff that can increase their chance for happiness. If inequality in and of itself is the problem, then the focus must be not on lifting the less successful, but on destroying the more successful. The logic of the anti-inequality premise necessarily means the goal would have to be collapsing everyone down to the level of the least happy. That, I submit, is the real meaning of Olen’s last sentence. That, I submit, is the naked face of hatred — hatred of human flourishing. It is the real motive behind the anti-economic inequality campaign. ” – A Retired Person Firmly Ensconced in Have-Mine-ism
What a way to frame life. How dare poor peoples’ problems be addressed. A rising tide lifts all boats? Bah! Don’t take the rich’s water to lift the boats of the poor, have them get their own water! Where? Wherever! Just not the successful and fortunate! They’ve staked their forever claim to all the resources they have, how dare you try to redistribute those resources in lieu of finding your own water. What? Finite resources? YOU HATE FILLED PERSON, LEAVE THE RICH ALONE.